Central Information Commission
Saurabh Gupta vs Gnctd on 18 April, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/111875
SAURABH GUPTA .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Directorate of Education,
GNCTD, RTI Cell, Room No. 220,
Old Secretariat, Delhi -110054 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16-04-2024
Date of Decision : 18-04-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16-09-2022
PIO replied on : 13-10-2022
First appeal filed on : 10-11-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 01-02-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06-03-2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"I am attaching herewith my application, the office memorandum of Govt of India no DPE/7(4)/2017-Fin dt 8th Nov 2016, no f 20/2/2014-ppd (pt.) dt 20th Sep 2016, no f20/2/2014-ppd(pt.) dt 25th July 2016, f no 1(2)(1)/2014- ma part 10 March 2016, policy circular no 1(2)(1)/2016-ma dt 10 March 2016.Page 1 of 3
I want to know that relaxation mention in the memorandum /circular regarding Prior Turnover/Prior Experience to the MSME Registered bidder, Allowed in Govt e tender/ gem portal of Directorate of education Delhi Govt?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13-10-2022 stating as under:
"With reference to your application filed under R.T.I Act, 2005 and received in this office through offline on dated 23.09.2022, it is stated that the same was forwarded to DDE (CTB Branch) i.e. the most closely related branch vide this office letter dated 27.09.2022. The reply received from SO (CTB Branch) vide its letter no. 1341 on dated 11.10.2022 is being forwarded to you (Copy enclosed).
However, it is stated the any type of clarification does not cover under the definition of information as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence need not be replied."
The content of the letter dated 11.10.2022 referred above is reproduced as under:
"With reference to your letter vide No. DE/RTI(HQ)/Online ID No. ---/Br. ID No. 35O8L/2O22/692O dated 27/09/2022 received from PIO / AP\O in respect of Sh. Saurabh Gupta, the information sought by the applicant is as under
Answer 1 & 2 e-tender/GeM bidding is Governed by GFR (General Financial Rule-2017), CVC guidelines and other procurement manual issued from GoI and Delhi Government time to time."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10-11-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 01-02-2023, held as under:
"The record was called for and perused. On going through the information sought in the said RTI, it is observed that the PIO (HQ) had appropriately forwarded the RTI application to concerned branch i.e., Care Taking Branch for providing information. The said branch provided the information which was further forwarded to the appellant by PIO (HQ) vide letter dated 13.10.2022 through speed post. The reply given by PIO (HQ) is appropriate."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Page 2 of 3 Respondent: Manoj Kumar, APIO and Shri Rajeev, SO, appeared in person The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the then PIO (HQ) had forwarded the RTI application to concerned branch i.e., Care Taking Branch for providing information. The said branch provided the information which was further forwarded to the appellant by PIO (HQ) vide letter dated 13.10.2022.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the respondent had replied to the RTI application vide letter dated 13.10.2022 wherein it was informed that e-tender/GeM bidding was Governed by GFR (General Financial Rule-2017), CVC guidelines and other procurement manual issued from GoI and Delhi Government from time to time. The FAA has also upheld the CPIO's reply vide order dated 01.02.2023.
The appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. The submissions of the respondent were taken on record. The Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the respondent and interference from the Commission is not called for in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्ि) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणर् सत्यापपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)