Central Information Commission
Rajeev Ranjan Gupta vs The National Small Industries ... on 9 December, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/NSICL/C/2021/147753
In the matter of
Rajeev Ranjan Gupta
... Complainant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (NSIC)
NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate,
New Delhi - 110020
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 09/08/2021 CPIO replied on : 06/09/2021 First appeal filed on : Date not mentioned
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record Complaint dated : 30/10/2021 Date of Hearing : 08/12/2022 Date of Decision : 08/12/2022 The following were present:
Complainant: Present over VC Respondent: O.P Gupta, GM (Law and Recovery), present over VC Information Sought:
The complainant has made a reference to the letter dated 04/06/2021 issued by CVO, NSIC to him and reply dated 14/06/2021, to the said letter given by him. The matter pertains to a complaint dated 18/03/2021 sent by the Complainant to CVC. In regard to the same, he has sought the following information:
1. Provide the details of action taken, point-wise, on the above said complaint.
2. Provide copies of the file notings, correspondence done and orders issued pertaining to the processing of the said complaint.1
3. Provide a copy of the inquiry report with regard to the said complaint and the details of action taken on the findings of the report.
4. Provide the name, designation and address of the official who has conducted the said inquiry.
Grounds for filing Complaint:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant vide written submissions dated 28.11.2022, submitted that the information given to him was not correct and the same was an attempt to save the corrupt officer.
The CPIO submitted that the complaint from the complainant was received in the office of the CVO. He further submitted that prima facie the complaint was not found substantive and hence, was closed. He also pointed out that there was no file notings, correspondence and inquiry report in this regard as no inquiry was initiated.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 06.09.2021 replied to the complainant and informed him in respect of point no. 1 that his complaint was received and as no substance was found the same was closed. In respect of point no. 2 information sought was denied u/s 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act. In respect of point no. 3 the reply on points no. 1 and 2 was referred to. In respect of point no. 4 the sought for information was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission finds no flaw in the reply given on points no. 1 and 4, as the complaint was not substantive and was accordingly closed. Further, any other personal details cannot be disclosed related to the third parties as they stand exempted from disclosure under Sec 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It is noted that the outcome of the complaint was suitably informed to the complainant. In respect of points no. 2 and 3 the CPIO should have provided the reply informing that no such information is available. Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO volunteered to provide a revised reply to the complainant on points no. 2 and 3 of the RTI application within 7 2 days from the date of receipt of the order, informing him that there is no such information available, the complaint being primarily closed. The CPIO is advised to be careful in future in respect of replying to RTI applications. Each point should be replied to keeping in consideration whether the information sought is actually available.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3