Central Information Commission
Mr. M L Gouhari vs Central Vigilance Commission on 18 July, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000313, 403, 627 & 628 (Three Cases)
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 18/07/2013
Date of decision : 18/07/2013
Name of the Appellant : Sh. M L Gouhari,
A1/107, Janak Puri, New Delhi 110058
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, GPO Complex, Block A,
INA, New Delhi
The Appellant was present along with Sh. Rajesh.
On behalf of the Respondent, Smt. Lila Chandran, DS was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard all the parties.
3. In four separate RTI applications, the Appellant had sought, mainly, to know about the action taken on various complaints he had sent to the CVC from time to time against the corruption and financial irregularities committed by some functionaries in a public sector undertaking (Ed GL). In all these cases, the CPIO had informed him that either the complaint had been sent to the CVO concerned for further necessary action or that reports had been invited from the CVO after enquiry. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant had preferred appeals which the Appellate Authority had disposed of without giving any further relief. That is how, now, these cases are before us. CIC/SM/A/2013/000313, 403 & 628
4. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that he was aggrieved that his complaints made to the CVC had not reached any final conclusion and, even in those cases, where reports had been invited from the CVO, he had not furnished any report even after the lapse of a long time. From the submissions of the respondent, we understand that, complaints received from the Appellant, from time to time, had been considered in the CVC and either filed or reports sought from the CVO concerned. It appears, the CVO is yet to furnish his reports even though the complaints had been sent quite some time back. If there is a timeline prescribed for furnishing such reports, it should be enforced strictly and the CVO should be compelled to furnish his report without delay. We would expect the CVC to look into this aspect and take appropriate action so that these complaints reach some finality.
5. Out of these cases, there is one matter in which, the respondent reported that the enquiry had been entrusted to the Administration Division of the CVC. In that matter, we would like the CPIO to examine the relevant records and inform the Appellant the status of the enquiry. All available information in connection with that enquiry should be provided to the Appellant except those items of information which have been deemed to be personal by the Supreme Court in its order in the Girish R Deshpande case. We direct the CPIO to write to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order and provide all this information to him.
6. The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. CIC/SM/A/2013/000313, 403 & 628 (Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2013/000313, 403 & 628