Central Information Commission
Anil Lohia vs Ministry Of Civil Aviation on 13 July, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/MOCAV/A/2017/133997
In the matter of:
Anil Lohia
...Appellant
Vs.
CPIO/Under Secretary
Ministry of Civil Aviation,
1st Floor, B Block, Rajiv Gandhi
Bhawan, New Delhi - 110003. ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 07.03.2017
CPIO reply : 24.03.2017
First Appeal : 17.04.2017
FAA Order : Not on record
Second Appeal : 18.05.2017
Date of hearing : 04.07.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 07.03.2017 sought information on two points;
1. Action taken on letters dated 12.12.2016 and 28.02.2017.
2. Status report and action taken report of the letter dated 17.01.2017.
The CPIO replied on 24.03.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and filed first appeal on 17.04.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order is not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 18.05.2017.
Page 1 of 3Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri S.V. Ramanna,
Under Secretary cum CPIO,
Ministry of Civil Aviation
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 24.03.2017. He handed over another reply dated 24.07.2017 during the hearing. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that the first reply dated 24.03.2017 was only interim in nature and even the subsequent reply dated 24.07.2017 was also not proper. A more comprehensive reply should have been provided to the appellant as all the sought for information is eminently disclosable under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act i.e. details of action taken in regard to the representations dated 12.12.2016 to 28.02.2017 and 17.01.2017 in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc. should have been provided to the appellant by the concerned respondent authority earlier.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case, the respondent CPIO, Under Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation is directed to provide revised point wise reply i.e. details of action taken on representations dated 12.12.2016 to 28.02.2017 and 17.01.2017 complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act are to be provided to the Page 2 of 3 appellant within 15 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 3