Central Information Commission
Alok Ratn Tripathi vs Department Of Forest And Wild Life on 3 February, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DOFWL/A/2023/649433
Alok Ratn Tripathi .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Department of Forest and
Wildlife, A Block, 2nd Floor,
Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New
Delhi - 110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025
Date of Decision : 31.01.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.08.2023
CPIO replied on : 18.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 12.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 10.10.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.08.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"I am writing this application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to seek information regarding the category of the person who joined through post code 67/14 in your department.Page 1 of 5
I request you to kindly provide me with the following information:
1. Whether the person who joined through post code 67/14 in your department belongs to UR category or OBC category?
2. If the person belongs to OBC category, please provide the relevant documents that prove his/her OBC status.
3. please provide the name of the wildlife inspector who joined through post code 67/14 in your department.
4. Please provide the information about according to DSSSB result of wildlife inspector post code 67/14( result notice no 1183) Roll no 111406700001 joined as wildlife inspector or not."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 10.10.2023, held as under:
"The SPIO(HQ) is hereby directed to provide information immediately. He is also advised to give the information/reply promptly to the RTI applicants as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 within the stipulated time period, in future.
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby disposed off."
In compliance with FAA order, the CPIO vide its letter dated 18.12.2023 had provided point-wise reply/information to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Singh, Section Officer and ACPIO and Sunil Kumar Mishra, Junior Assistant present in person.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:Page 2 of 5
"1. UR
2. as above
3. Shri Vineet Bhat
4. Yes."
The Respondents submitted that vide their letter dated 18.12.2023, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on their record has been provided to the Appellant. The Respondents reiterated that no other information is available in their records except as already provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant appeal was non-furnishing of complete information by the CPIO. The Commission observes that complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on their record has already been provided to the Appellant as per his RTI application vide letter dated 18.12.2023.
It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant. The PIO can only provide information which is readily available in their records.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
The Commission observes from the second appeal of the Appellant that he has not received letter dated 18.12.2023 of the Respondent. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to again send a copy of their letter dated 18.12.2023 to the Appellant, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated PIO's and FAA's of almost all Public Authorities, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, Page 3 of 5 official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation of instructions on the subject.
In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer its own judgment dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. . . . . . . .. Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future."
The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."
Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act In view of above, an advisory, is issued to Head of the Department, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority's office and issue a direction to their PIO's and FAA's to write their Page 4 of 5 names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeal in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005. The Head of the Department, is also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Department of Forest and Wildlife, A Block, 2nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to maintain records in digital form for proper management and ease of access in compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)