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 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Lalit Kumar Rawal vs Gnctd on 27 February, 2023

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                       के न्द्रीयसच
                                                  ू नाआयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                    बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/134848-UM

Mr. Lalit Kumar Rawal
                                                                        ....अपीलकताा/Appellant

                                            VERSUS
                                              बनाम



CPIO
O/o The District Magistrate (East)
L M Bund, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110031
                                                                        प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent



Date of Hearing       :                24.02.2023
Date of Decision      :                27.02.2023



Date of RTI application                                                    28.02.2022

CPIO's response                                                            11.04.2022

Date of the First Appeal                                                   10.05.2022

First Appellate Authority's response                                       31.05.2022

Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                       21.07.2022


                                           ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 10 points, as under:-

The PIO, O/o The District Magistrate (East), vide letter dated 11.04.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 31.05.2022directed all the PIOs of District East to give the revised reply of RTI Application as per Act.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Lalit Kumar Rawal attended the hearing, Respondent: Mr. Ajay Rana, Nayab Tehsildar, attended the hearing. The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding number of petitions filed under section 133 of CRPC from 2015 to 2022 etc. He submitted that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. While deposing in the hearing, he stated that the Department wilfully and deliberately misled and hid information. He said there is an undue delay in furnishing proper reply to his RTI application which clearly shows the lackadaisical approach of the CPIO in implementing the RTI Act-2005.
The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide letter dated 11.04.2022, a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. He said that the information sought is not available in their office record. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said. The Appellant countered the claim of the Respondent and stated that the above said reply of the respondent is wrong because he himself filed 2 or 3 petition under section 133 of CRPC w.r.t unlawful obstruction or nuisance in public place. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to search the information sought and furnish satisfactory information.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 24.02.2023 which is taken on record.
DECISION:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by both the parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the matter and provide an updated and concise revised reply to the Appellant or furnish an affidavit to the Commission, explaining the factual position regarding the non-availability of the information sought in the RTI application, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the Complainant. In the case the CPIO files a wrong affidavit the Complainant will have the remedy to approach the court of law under the offence of perjury and contempt of the Commissions order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.


                                                      (Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
                                           (Information Commissioner) (सच      ु )
                                                                        ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत)




(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598 / [email protected]
द्वदनांक / Date: 27.02.2023