Central Information Commission
Sharad Kumar vs Nmdc Ltd. on 23 August, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No. CIC/NMDCL/A/2021/114875
In the matter of:
Sharad Kumar
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
NMDC Ltd, Khanij Bhavan 10-3-311/A,
Castle Hills, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 08/02/2021 CPIO replied on : 22/02/2021 First appeal filed on : 25/02/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 18/03/2021 Second Appeal filed on : 26/03/2021 Date of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date of Decision : 23/08/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: K Praveen Kumar, Executive Director & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought The appellant has sought the following information with regard to payment of rent by NMDC to the owners of premises located at 109, 109-A, Surya Kiran Building, 19 K.G. Marg, New Delhi:
A. Provide details of action taken on his letter dated 25/01/2021. B. Provide monthly statement of rent paid to Mr. Shard Kumar, Bharat Agarwal and Rishab Agarwal from 01/04/2013 to 31/03/2020. C. Provide details of action taken till date by the company to recover excess amount of rent paid to Smt. Saroj Rani Mangal and Karan Mangal. D. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead his case despites service of hearing notice on 12.08.2022 vide speed post acknowledgment No. ED007437657IN. However, in his second appeal he had stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not given by the CPIO.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 22.02.2021. He also reiterated the contents of his written submissions dated 20.08.2022.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that even though a point-wise reply was given to the appellant on 22.02.2021, however, on point (A), the reply of the CPIO was not correct. On this point, the appellant had sought the details of action taken on his letter dated 22.02.2021 and the same is covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is therefore directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant informing him as to what action was taken on his letter.
With regard to the rest of the points, the reply of the CPIO is proper. Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant on point (A) as per the discussions held during the hearing. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 2 3