Central Information Commission
Rajesham Ekitala vs Ministry Of Defence on 1 September, 2017
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Dyc fcfYMax (iksLV vkfQl ds ikl)
Club Building (Near Post Office)
vksYM Tks ,u ;w dSEil, ubZ fnYyh-110067
Old JNU Campus,New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
File No. CIC/DODEF/C/2017/112907/SD
Date of Decision:30/08/2017
Relevant facts emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Rajesham Ekitala
1-5-1015/176 Rd No. 3
Manjeera Nagar Alwal
Secunderabad, Telangana - 500010
Respondent : CPIO
O/O Defence Estates Office
Courts Compound S P Road
Secunderabad Cantt - 500003
RTI application filed on : 21/12/2016
PIO replied on : No reply
First appeal filed on : N.A.
First Appellate Authority : N.A.
order
Complaint dated : 17/02/2017
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Complainant sought certified copy of GLR extracts of 27 roads of Secunderabad Cantonment located between Hakimpet & Marredpally. Grounds for the Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:1
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present and assisted by T.M. Ganguly through VC.
Respondent: Subhankar Nath, SDO-II & CPIO, Defence Estates Office, Secunderabad Cantt. present through VC.
CPIO submitted that reply on the RTI Application has been provided vide letter dated 17.02.2017.
Complainant agreed to have received the reply after filing the instant Complaint, but brought on record that the same has been received only on 14.03.2017, which indicates that either the reply was backdated or sent much later than when it was drafted. He further stated that in addition to the reply being inordinately delayed, same is deficient as no information has been provided on para 2(d) and 2(e) of the RTI Application. He specifically wanted action against the CPIO under Section 18 for both the omissions.
Upon Commission's instance, CPIO submitted that information on remaining paras could not be given as it was personal information of third parties. As regards the delay, he stated that the nature of information sought is such that which required time to be ascertained after perusing the records.
Decision Commission accepts the reason of the CPIO for the delay in replying on the RTI Application, as a perusal of the same reveals that information pertained to 27 roads, and indeed is of a scattered nature. However, keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act, CPIO is warned to ensure in future that, in cases where information sought is voluminous in nature and is being deduced at his end, action being taken on the RTI Application should be informed to RTI Applicants as expeditiously as possible, but strictly within 30 days from the receipt of the RTI Application.
Further, CPIO should have invoked the appropriate exemption clause under RTI Act if he intended to deny the information on paras 2(d) and 2(e) of the RTI Application instead of altogether omitting to reply on the same. As such, it is observed that information sought vide paras 2(d) and 2(e) do not fall under any of the exemptions of Section 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act. CPIO is directed to acquaint himself well with the provisions of RTI Act before dealing with RTI Applications in future.
2File No. CIC/DODEF/C/2017/112907/SD Action under Section 18(2) in the instant matter does not seem warranted as the reasons for delay in providing the reply is accepted. Further, the partial denial of information is attributed to an error of judgment of the CPIO for which he is being strictly warned against.
With these observations, the Complaint is disposed of.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 3