Central Information Commission
Dipanshu Singh vs Transport Department Delhi on 30 September, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/TDDEL/A/2022/607684-UM
Mr. DIPANSHU SINGH
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Transport Department,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 5/9, Under Hill Rd,
Ludlow Castle, Civil Lines, Delhi, 110054
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.09.2022
Date of Decision : 30.09.2022
Date of RTI application 28.05.2021
CPIO's response 06.07.2021
Date of the First Appeal 07.07.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 25.08.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information regarding he lodge a grievance on PGMS portal, as under:-
Page 1 of 3The CPIO vide letter dated 06.07.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 25.08.2021, directed the PIO to provide proper information in respect of related questions to the Appellant.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Dipanshu Singh present in the hearing, Respondent: Mr. S.K Johri, Sr. System Analyst, present in the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding grievances sent on the PGMS portal dated 27.05.2021 etc. He submitted that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. He said First Appellate Authority order has not been complied with till date. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information. The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 25.06.2021, they had furnished a reply as per record available in their office. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that First Appellate Authority (FAA) order dated 07.07.2021, has not been complied with by the CPIO and ignoring the spirit of RTI Act which is providing legitimate information asked by the Appellant. In doing so they have treated the instant RTI Application/First Appeal and Second Appeal in a cavalier manner. The said conduct of the CPIO amounts to violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, the Commission directs the First Appellate Authority to ascertain whether the FAA order has been Complied or not and if not then ensure that it is complied with strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 10 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.Page 2 of 3
Further, the Commission takes a serious view of the CPIO, for not complying with the FAA order, which shows his negligence towards the RTI Act 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs him to submit a detailed explanation before the Commission, for not complying with the FAA order, within 30 days of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनाक ं / Date: 30.09.2022 Page 3 of 3