Central Information Commission
Mohammad Ramzan Khan vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 17 May, 2022
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/UTOJK/C/2020/114714
Shri Mohammad Ramzan Khan िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Directorate of Health Services, Srinagar
Date of Hearing : 12.05.2022
Date of Decision : 17.05.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 15.11.2017
PIO replied on : 26.02.2018
First Appeal filed on : -
First Appellate Order on : -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 22.05.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2017 seeking information on the following points:-
The CPIO, Directorate of Health Services, Kashmir, vide letter dated 26.02.2018 furnished the reply received from Deputy Director, Health Services, Kashmir, which stated as under:-Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant filed a Complaint with the State Information Commission, J&K.The Deputy Registrar, State Information Commission, J&K, vide notice dated 25.04.2018 directed thePIO, Directorate of Health Services, Kashmir, Srinagar, as under:-
The CPIO, Directorate of Health Services, Kashmir Division, vide letter dated 12.05.2018 submitted reply/statement to the State Information Commission as under:-
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Complainant's son Shri Irfan Mohommad Khan participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that his father Shri Mohammed Ramzan Khan passed away in the year 2021. However, he wishes to pursue the instant Complaint at this stage and that he also possesses a copy of the legal heir certificate issued in his favour by the Tehsildar, Gurez, dated 18.05.2021, a copy of which was forwarded to the Commission subsequent to the hearing. As regards the substantive issues in this matter, he stated that since the response was not provided within the stipulated time period he could not pay the fees mentioned in the reply.
The Respondent represented by Dr Nishad Shaheen, Asst Director of Health Services participated in the hearing through video conference. She stated that the reply to the instant RTI application received on 16.11.2017 was provided on 21.12.2017 wherein a request was made to the Complainant to pay a fees of Rs 700/- for availing 350 pages of information which was not deposited by the Page 2 of 3 Complainant until 26.02.2018 when he personally came, checked the records, deposited Rs 750/- and received the information.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a Complaint under the RTI Act where the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause which the Commission was unable to conclude in the present instance. Although thre was a slight delay of around 7 days in providing the information, the same is condoned by the Commission in view of the fact that the information as per available record has been provided to the Complainant subsequently. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Complaint which is dismissed accordingly.
वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा)
Y. K. Sinha (वाई िस हा
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3