Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Shabir Hussain vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 31 May, 2025

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                     के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                 बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOJK/A/2024/109758

Shri Shabir Hussain                                             ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, BDO - Kargil, UT of Jammu and Kashmir                  ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                         :    28.05.2025
Date of Decision                        :    28.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner          :    Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :          31.07.2023
PIO replied on                    :          NA
First Appeal filed on             :          01.10.2023
First Appellate Order on          :          NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :          05.04.2024

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

"Please provide me the information and regulation of the government gram panchayat Hardass KARGIL, from 01/01/2018 to 31/07/2023. As the information provided is not inclusive therefore kindly provide me detailed break up of the works and the information that I have sought. As per your letter no BDO_k_23/450-51 It is also worth to mention that for a single work three times payment has been done as per the information provided. Also the payment released for the work interlocking tiles from Grounjuk to High School Hardass there is misappropriation of funds as the work has not been done on ground. And traditional cold storage at kharul is not seen any place for the complete of work. Kindly provide the relevant information at the earliest. Plz Send me the details of the works at Serial numbers. And also furnished the details of these works year wise. S No. 2 Fancing & interlocking tiles Grounjuk to High school hardass. Construction of public library phase 2nd S. No. 12. CCDA Construction of kual hardas. S. No 17. Construction septic tank S. No. 18 construction of public bathroom. S. No. 22& 23 construction graveyard. S. No. 24.

Floormill. S No.27. Sanitary complexe S. No 32. CFC hardass S.No.35. CFC hardass S.No 42. Const. Of R/R wall thang S. No 43. Cold storage S. No 44 & 45 CFC hardass S No.41. 47848 construction of RR Wall M/S Grounjuk S. No 50 footpath tiles S. No 52. NRLM Community investment. S.No.59. MGNREGA. And also provide me the information about how many green house & pack house to gave individual person. Also provide me the details of individual govt. scheme took Page 1 of 3 benefit of every individual person my village.fo horticulture & agriculture department."

Aggrieved with non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within time limit, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.10.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 26.05.2025 has been received from the BDO, Kargill stating that PIO had sent a reply dated 06.09.2023, annexing a copy thereof with the submission.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Tsering Wangchuk - BDO, Kargill was present through video conference during hearing.

The Respondent stated that complete information existing on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, as permissible under the RTI Act. The Appellant admitted that reply had been furnished though he pointed out the delay caused by the Respondent in furnishing the response and also stated that he had found irregularities in fund allocation from the information so provided by the Respondent.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent has furnished information available on records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, in terms of the provisions of the Act. In so far as the allegation of irregularity in fund allocation is concerned, adjudication of the same cannot be undertaken under the purview of the RTI Act. Such disputed issues can be addressed under appropriate legal provisions, outside the ambit of the RTI Act.

Before concluding the decision, the Commission advises the public authority to ensure suo motu disclosure of maximum information on their website about the various welfare schemes initiated by the Government in compliance of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act in order to enhance awareness, promote transparency and accountability in functioning of the public authority. While proactively disclosing the information mentioned above, due caution should also be exercised by the Respondent to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Section 8 and 9 RTI Act and redact any information which falls under any of the exemption clauses by applying the severability clause as laid down under Section 10 of the RTI Act.

In the given scenario, the response of the PIO is found legally appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act. Hence, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)