Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Dr. C. Suresh vs Housing And Urban Development ... on 3 November, 2022

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                             केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/HUDCO/A/2021/628469

 Dr. C. Suresh                                       .....अपीलकताग /Appellant

                                    VERSUS/बनाम


 Public Information Officer Under RTI,
 Under Secretary-(RTI Section), Housing & Urban
 Development Corporation Limited, HUDCO Bhawan,
 Core-7-A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road,
 New Delhi-110003

 Public Information Officer Under RTI,
 Office of the Regional Chief, Housing & Urban
 Development Corporation Limited,
 HUDCO Regional Office, 5-10-193,
 1st Floor, HACA Bhawan, Opposite Assembly,
 Saifabad, Hyderabad-500004 (Telangana).


                                                       ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

  RTI application filed on          :   07.05.2021
  CPIO replied on                   :   04.06.2021
  First appeal filed on             :   14.06.2021
  First Appellate Authority order   :   25.06.2021
  Second Appeal received at CIC     :   07.07.2021
  Date of Hearing                   :   03.11.2022
  Date of Decision                  :   03.11.2022


                   सूचना आयुक्त   : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
            Information Commissioner:    Shri Heeralal Samariya


                                                                       Page 1 of 5
 Information sought

:

The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 04.06.2021, as under:
Page 2 of 5
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 14.06.2021.
• The FAA vide order dated 25.06.2021 held as under:
• Written submission has been received from the Appellant as under :
Page 3 of 5
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present Respondent: Absent.
The Appellant submitted that he is CMD and guarantor of the loan of the agency regarding which he has sought information. He submitted that the Respondent has erroneously invoked exemption clause and denied disclosure of information.
Decision:
Commission takes very strong exception of non-attendance of PIO during the hearing of Second Appeal. Commission hereby directs PIO to file a written explanation justifying the said conduct, failing which an action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act will be initiated against him/her, if necessary. PIO is further directed to send copy of supporting documents on which he relies upon in his submission.
PIO is directed to ensure that his written submission reaches the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Page 4 of 5
Now, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that reply furnished by the Respondent is not meticulous and Respondent has not been able to justify the exemption invoked under Section 8 (1)(d), 8 (1)(e) and 8 (1)(a) of the RTI Act. Commission notes that the Appellant has sought information which relates to his own agency thus, in the interest of justice, Commission directs the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and in writing. In case relevant records are available at some other department, then PIO must procure the said documents and arrange them for said inspection.

Copy of documents, if desired, should be provided to the Appellant after the payment of the requisite fees as per RTI Act, 2005. However, no information should be furnished by the PIO, to the Appellant, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005 other than the exemption clauses invoked by the Respondent in their reply dated 04.06.2021.

Commission's directions should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5