Central Information Commission
Mr.Maj Gen Vinay Kumar Singh vs Ministry Of Consumer Aff., Food, And ... on 25 May, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110 067
TEL: 01126179548
Decision No.CIC/SS/A/2011/001980/VS/00192
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/001980/VS
Dated: 25.5.2012
Appellant: Maj.Gen.Vinay Kumar Singh (Retd.),
G31, Palam Vihar,
Gurgaon122 017
Respondent: Public Information Officer,
National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission,
7th Floor, B Wing, Janpath Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi 110 001
Date of Hearing: 25.5.2012
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 2.5.2011 with the CPIO, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), seeking information in respect of his letter reporting a case of fabricating false evidence and forgery of records. The appellant also sought certified copies of the pertinent documents.
2. The CPIO on 2.6.2011 furnished point wise information, but the appellant was not satisfied, which led him to file a first appeal on 6.6.2011. The first appellate authority (FAA), vide letter dated 13.7.2011, upheld the response given by the CPIO. Not satisfied with the replies of the CPIO and the FAA, the appellant filed a second appeal on 27.2.2012 with the Commission to provide him complete information and take suitable action against the respondents under section 20 (1) and (2) of the Act.
3. The appellant and respondent both were present for the hearing. During the hearing, the appellant stated that he had sought specific information on his letter regarding the lodging of a forgery complaint. He stated that the RTI application was responded to, but the questions raised were addressed cryptically and vaguely.
4. The response of the NCDRC was obfuscated. This was brought out by the appellant in the hearing, taking into account that the date of an order was tampered with by overwriting to circumvent the period of limitation, which was a serious matter that should have triggered the NCDRC into action. It was stated by the appellant that this fabricated order was used to avoid the timebar, but the NCDRC did not file a forgery case with the police against those responsible, in this case, the Army Welfare Housing Organization.
5. The respondent stated that if a case had to be filed, it should have been done by the appellant. At the same time, the respondent felt that whatever information was held by the NCDRC had been provided to the appellant.
6. The information sought by the appellant in his RTI application is in the context of straight questions. A certified copy of the file notings has also been sought. The relevant information should be provided.
Decision:
7. The information should be provided by the respondent on all the questions and points in the RTI application. This should be done in a manner that brings out the relevant information directly and clearly. The order should be complied with within 30 days of its receipt.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer