Central Information Commission
Madan Lal Goel vs Edcil (India) Limited on 5 August, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/EDCIL/A/2020/108484
Madan Lal Goel ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
EDCIL Ltd., RTI Cell,
Corporate Office, EDCIL House,
18 A, Sector 16A, Noida - 201301,
Uttar Pradesh. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/08/2021
Date of Decision : 04/08/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/10/2019
CPIO replied on : 03/12/2019
First appeal filed on : 23/12/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 20/01/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18/02/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.10.2019 seeking the following information;2 3 4 5 6
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 03.12.2019 stating as follows:-7
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.12.2019. FAA's order dated 20.01.2020 stated as follows:-
".....The RTI Act does not cast on the Public Authority any obligation to answer queries, in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answer to the questions with prefixes, such as, why, stating of reason, extract, etc......."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the reply of CPIO and also on non- receipt of desired information ignoring the fact that specific information has been sought by him, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference. Respondent: Sunil Mathur, Deputy General Manager (HR & Admin) & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that despite seeking specific information in continuation of RTI Application by filing amendments in the First Appeal, no material information has been provided by the CPIO & FAA till date rather his RTI Application along with IPO have been returned to him which is in violation of RTI Act. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the specific information sought for.
The CPIO submitted that the queries raised by the Appellant are generic in nature and not in consonance of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, therefore his RTI Application along with IPO were returned to him with the averred factual reply accordingly.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset takes graves exception to the fact that the CPIO has returned the RTI Application along with IPO to the Appellant on the plea that the information sought being not as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act ignoring the fact that there is no express provision to this effect under the RTI Act. The Commission records severe admonition on such irresponsible conduct of the CPIO and strictly warns him to be careful in future and exercise due diligence while replying to the RTI application.8
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission further observes from a perusal of the record that the reply provided by the CPIO to the instant RTI Application except for at point nos. 1, 2(i), 3, 4, 5 (i), 6(i) & (ii), 7(i) & (ii), 8(i), 9 (i) & (ii), 10 (i) & (ii), 11 (i) & (iv), 12 (i) & (ii) is not at all cogent and largely fails to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing and considering the prayer of Appellant the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply along with readily available information on points no. 2(ii), 5(ii), 6(iii), 6(iv), 7(iii), 7(iv), 8(ii), 9(iii), 9(iv), 10(iii), 11(ii), 11(iii), 11(iv), 12 (ii)(b) last para and 12 (iii) of RTI Application. In the event the information sought for is available in public domain then CPIO is directed to provide specific hyper link to this effect and also if the information sought for on any of these points are not available in their office records then a categorical statement to this effect shall be stated in the CPIO's reply.
The aforesaid reply and information shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant through speed post within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 9