Central Information Commission
M Bala Soudarssanane vs Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare on 9 December, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MH&FW/A/2019/100848
Shri M Bala Soudarssanane ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Under Secretary,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Date of Hearing : 08.12.2020
Date of Decision : 09.12.2020
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.11.2017
PIO replied on : 20.12.2017
First Appeal filed on : 11.01.2018
First Appellate Order on : 13.02.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 04.01.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.11.2017 seeking action taken on his affidavit dated 11.08.2017 & letter dated 20.10.2017.
The CPIO /Under Secretary, INI-II Section vide letter dated 20.12.2017 informed that as per available records in INI-II Section, no such affidavit dated 11.08.2017 in OA 1265/10, W.P 9615/11 & SLP 28360/11 and letter dated 20.10.2017 has been received in the section.
Dissatisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.01.2018. The FAA& Director (INI) vide order dated 13.02.2018 observed that the information is not available with the CPIO. However, the Appellant's appeal dated 11.01.2018 and RTI application dated 20.11.2017 was transferred to the First Appellate Authority, JIPMER, Puducherry for giving information.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Page 1 of 3A written submission has been received from Appellant vide letter dated 30.11.2020 wherein it was inter alia stated that the JIPMER's FAA Dr Gautam Roy replied to him vide letter dated 25.04.2018 that JIPMER does not have any information which was obvious as the affidavit was sent to the Secretary, M/o Health and Family Welfare. Explaining that he had sent another copy of affidavit dated 11.08.2017 vide letter dated 14.02.2018 and a separate affidavit dated 28.02.2018, the Appellant stated that he possessed postal receipts as proof that his affidavit dated 11.08.2017 was delivered on to M/o H&FW on 14.08.2017. He also stated that his complaint against JIPMER dated 31.12.2018 for non compliance of Commission's order on same subject matter be taken up for hearing on 08.12.2020 or any early date for hearing be given.
Another written submission has been received from Appellant vide letter dated 04.12.2020 wherein he inter alia reiterated his submission and allegation regarding incorrect reply provided by the Respondent regarding non-receipt of affidavit dated 11.08.2017 and insisted on the presence of the officials from the M/o Health and Family Welfare during the hearing A written submission has been received from CPIO and US, INI-II Section vide letter dated 26.11.2020 wherein while reiterating the reply/ order of the CPIO/ FAA it was stated that as the information requested by the Appellant is to be provided by the JIPMER, Puducherry, the notice of hearing of hearing was forwarded to the Nodal CPIO, JIPMER with a request to attend the hearing.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. Explaining the background of the matter, he stated that in July, 2013 he had filed an Original Application (OA) before the CAT, Chennai bench, against his compulsory retirement from JIPMER, where the matter is still subjudice. While alleging connivance of JIPMER, officials with the presiding officials in CAT, Chennai, the Appellant stated that he had filed affidavits before Cabinet Secretariat against CAT officials and the M/o Health and Family Welfare against JIPMER officials. However, no action was taken by the M/o Health and Family Welfare who incorrectly denied the receipt of the affidavit as he possessed postal receipt proving dispatch and receipt of the affidavit by the Ministry.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, US- RTI Cell through audio conference. Reiterating the response of the CPIO/ FAA, the Respondent stated that subsequent to the filing of the instant RTI application, the Appellant filed another RTI application dated 19.02.2018 on similar issues against which a reply was provided on 16.03.2018, informing him that his representation/ affidavit was forwarded to JIPMER, Puducherry for further examination. Subsequently, vide letter dated 09.10.2018, a communication was sent to the Appellant after examination of his representation. The Appellant however denied the receipt of the aforementioned letter dated 09.10.2018. He also stated that similar matters were earlier decided by the Commission which were not complied with by the Respondent, till date hence he requested the Commission to also pass Page 2 of 3 direction on the non-compliance applications filed by him in earlier matters. The Commission however clarified to the Appellant that in the instant Second Appeal hearing, the Commission is only dealing with his RTI application dated 20.11.2017 and that his non-compliance applications on earlier decisions will be dealt with separately, if so decided by the Commission. On being queried by the Commission regarding the reason for filing multiple RTI applications on a similar subject matter, the Appellant stated that he was compelled to do so due the prolonged pendency of his matter before CAT for more than 7 years.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, US- RTI Cell to provide a consolidated updated response to the Appellant informing him about the factual position with regard to the issues raised in his RTI application. The aforementioned direction should be complied with by 31.12.2020 under intimation to the Commission. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is requested to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3