Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sanjeet Sehrawat vs Edcil (India) Limited on 11 May, 2023

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/EDCIL/A/2022/627483
 शिकायत संख्या/Complaint No.:         CIC/EDCIL/C/2022/621789


 Sanjeet Sehrawat                                       .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
                                                        ...शिकायतकताा/Complainant

                                    VERSUS/बनाम


 Public Information Officer Under RTI,
 Section Officer-(RTI/Admin.), EdCIL (India)
 Limited (Ministry of Education), EdCIL House,
 18-A, Sector-16-A, NOIDA-201301 (Uttar Pradesh).

                                                           ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

  RTI application filed on          :   24.01.2022
  CPIO replied on                   :   27.04.2022
  First appeal filed on             :   15.03.2022
  First Appellate Authority order   :   02.05.2022
  Second Appeal received at CIC     :   23.05.2022
  Complaint received at CIC         :   21.04.2022
  Date of Hearing                   :   11.05.2023
  Date of Decision                  :   11.05.2023

Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:

  RTI application filed on          :   15.03.2022
  CPIO replied on                   :   Not on record
  First appeal filed on             :   Not on record
  First Appellate Authority order   :   Not on record
  Complaint received at CIC         :   21.04.2022
  Date of Hearing                   :   11.05.2023
  Date of Decision                  :   11.05.2023

                                                                         Page 1 of 4
                 सूचना आयुक्त   : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
         Information Commissioner:    Shri Heeralal Samariya


Information sought

:

The Appellant/ Complainant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 27.04.2022, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant/ Complainant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 15.03.2022.
• The FAA vide order dated 02.05.2022 held as under:
Page 2 of 4
Grounds for Second Appeal/Complaint:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant/ Complainant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant/ Complainant: Present Respondent:1. Mr. Sunil Kumar Mathur (DGM) (HR admin &CPIO)

2. Mr Vikas (Asst. manager) Appellant/ Complainant has submitted that he has not received the information. he further submitted that his RTI Application has been kept for 40 days without being transferred to another public authority. He further requested the commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the information.

Upon the Commission instance, the CPIO has submitted that the delay in the transfer of the RTI Application was due to covid-19 pandemic and it was not deliberate delay. He further affirmed that he would abide by the orders of the Commission.

Decision:

Since both the matters in the RTI Applications are same therefore club together for final disposal.
Commission, on the basis of submission of parties during hearing and perusal of case records, observes that Appellant/Complainant is not satisfied with the reply furnished by the concerned PIO. Therefore, Commission directs the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised reply on point no 3, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the appellant/complainant, 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. As regards the other points of the RTI Application Commission observes that appropriate response has been furnished.
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 Second Appeal No CIC/EDCIL/A/2022/627483 is disposed of, accordingly.
Page 3 of 4
As regards the Complaint No. CIC/EDCIL/C/2022/621789, the Commission observes that prima facie there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information to the Appellant/Complainant, hence no action warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the aforementioned Complaint is disposed off, accordingly.
Matters are 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 Sanjeet Sehrawat, House No.-218, Maman Pradhan Wali Gali, Balmiki Chowk, Village--Daryapur Kalan, Delhi-110039.
Page 4 of 4