Central Information Commission
M M Shuja vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 1 July, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UTOJK/C/2020/114740
M M Shuja .... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Chief Executive Officer,
Sonmarg Development Authority,
District Ganderbal,
UT of J & K .... ितवादीगण/Respondent
ितवादीगण
RTI application filed on : 14/09/2017
CPIO replied on : No reply
First appeal filed on : N.A.
First Appellate Authority order : N.A.
Complaint dated : 04/12/2017
Date of Hearing : 29/06/2020
Date of Decision : 29/06/2020
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Complainant sought information through 6 points pertaining to construction of huts, hotels, structures in the Sonmarg Development Authority as on 01.04.2020, including inter er alia, details of proprietors/owners of said huts, hotels, structures, Number and descriptions of the applications received for grant of 1 permissions for the construction of said huts, hotels, structures for the period starting from 01.02.2010 till 31.08.
31.08.2017.
Grounds for the Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
present:-
Complainant: Present on phone.
Respondent: Altaf Hussain Harey, EE & PIO, Chief Executive Officer, Sonmarg Development Authority, District Ganderbal, UT of J & K present through VC.
Complainant stated that as on date although he has received the information, however he is aggrieved with the fact that that PIO sought additional fees after expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the RTI Application.
PIO submitted that upon receipt of the RTI Application on 04.10.2017, due attempt was being made to collect all the information from old records. He further stated that searching and collating documents that were 7 years old was every difficult particularly when the same was not even in a good shape post the inundation caused by the 2014 floods, yet the officials made every attempt to locate and collate the data for facilitating the Complainant. That, upon compilation, a reply was sent to the Complainant requesting payment of additional fees vide letter dated 28.11.2017 28.11.2017. However,, Complainant did not pay the additional fees despite a reminder sent on 18.07.2018, when the matter came up before the erstwhile J&K SIC. That, when the Complainant refused to pay the additional fees, in keeping with the letter and spirit of RTI Act, copy of all documents was sent through special messenger and delivered to the Complainant against receipt on 04.09.2018.
Decision Commission based on the perusal of facts on record accepts the submission of the PIO regarding the delay caused in seeking the additional fees as not being deliberate. Moreover, considering the enormity enormity of the information sought and 2 File No : CIC/UTOJK/C/2020/114740 the condition of records as submitted by the PIO, no malafide intention can be ascribed to the conduct of tthe PIO.
With the above observations, the the Complaint is disposed of.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा) हा Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140/ 26106140/ [email protected] हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक दनांक/ Date 3