Central Information Commission
Amit Harlalka vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 16 August, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BHELD/C/2022/620176
Amit Harlalka ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
RTI Cell, Tiruchirapalli-620014,
Tamilnadu ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16/08/2022
Date of Decision : 16/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 26/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 06/12/2021
First appeal filed on : NIL
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 26.11.2021 seeking the following information:
"MSEFC, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh has issued an order to BHEL, Trichy dated 13.08.2021 against Case No. MSEFC/932/2019 for payment to MSE firm. Want to know the status of action taken against that order ."1
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 06.12.2021 stating as follows:-
"This Public Authority is not able to ascertain the information sought based on the details provided. You are requested provide specific details like Work Order, Dealing Department or vendor Code or the work allotted etc. to furnish the requisite information."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: M Nithya, HR (Law) & CPIO present through video-conference.
The CPIO relied on her written submission dated 13.08.2022 and submitted that the Complainant has sought information about the action taken on an order of MSEFC, Bhopal to BHEL and he also enclosed a copy of the said order with the RTI Application. She further submitted that since copy of the order attached with the RTI application was skipped inadvertently; therefore, the Complainant was replied accordingly. However, the FAA took cognizance of the said order of MSEFC and therefore, accordingly directed the CPIO to provide relevant information. Thus, in compliance with FAA's order, a factual reply has been furnished to the Complainant on 11.04.2022 informing him that BHEL, Tirchy was in the process of challenging the said order by filing first appeal before the competent authority.
The CPIO further apprised the Bench that the appeal has since been filed by their office to contest the MSEFC order served on to BHEL.
To a query from the Commission, the Complainant affirmed the receipt of the averred reply and did not contest any further action in the matter.
Decision 2 The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO in compliance with FAA's order as the same adequately suffices the information sought by the Complainant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission advises the CPIO to exercise due diligence while responding to the RTI Application in future and ensure that relevant points/documents of RTI Applications should not be overlooked which may lead to hardships for the information seeker to wait for a long period and/or exhaust the channel of First Appeal/Complaint under RTI Act for getting the desired information.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 3