Central Information Commission
Mrpuneet Gupta vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 25 March, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/KY/A/2014/001357
Appellant : Shri Puneet Gupta
F-311, Ground Floor, SushantLok-II
Sec-57, Gurgaon, Haryana
Public Authority : The CPIO
M/o. Corporate Affairs, W-Wing, 2nd Floor
Kendriya Sadana, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034
Date of Hearing : 25.03.2015
Date of Decision : 25.03.2015
Presence:
Appellant : Shri Puneet Gupta
CPIO : Absent
FACTS:
1. Vide RTI application dated 16.09.2014, the Appellant sought information on the 13 issues.
2. CPIO, vide its response dated 01.12.2014, has provided the information to the Appellant.
3. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 29.10.2014, as the desired information was not provided.
4. First Appellate Authority (FAA), on 01.12.2014, upheld the decision of CPIO.
5. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 09.12.2014 are contained in the Memorandum of Appeal.
HEARING Appellant appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length. Respondent opted to be absent despite of our due notice to them.
DECISION It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 16.09.2014, sought information from the respondents on thirteen issues. However, respondents failed to furnish any response to the appellant. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid PIO's inaction, FA was filed by the appellant on 29.10.2014 before the FAA. However, Respondents, vide their response dated 01.12.2014, provided the required information to the appellant on all thirteen issues. Further, FAA vide his order dated 01.12.2014, upheld the views of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
2. During hearing of the appeal, it is submitted by appellant that he got the satisfactory response dated 01.12.2014, from the respondents on his RTI application dated 16.09.2014. On the merit of the reply given by respondents, it is also submitted by him that the reply so furnished is more or less correct. Therefore, he is not pressing the same. However, he has grievance that respondents issued the reply on 01.12.2014, which is at a very belated stage. Thus, appellant wants compensation in terms of Section 19(8) (b) of the RTI Act 2005.
.......2 -2-
3. However, when he was asked by the Commission, as to prove the loss suffered by him due to delay caused by CPIO's response provided at belated stage. On this, the appellant miserably failed to prove any loss suffered by him due to the delay. Not only this, there is no such prayer incorporated in the prayer clause of the memorandum of second appeal. Therefore, the Commission feels that appellant is not entitled to any compensation in his regard.
4. The Commission heard the submissions made by appellant at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 16.09.2014, respondent's response dated 01.12.2014, FAA's order dated 01.12.2014, appellant's written submissions dated 25.03.2015 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
5. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that the respondents have provided the required information to the appellant in terms of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. In view of this, the Commission feels that the appellant's second appeal becomes redundant in this regard. Thus, the appellant's second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, it is dismissed.
The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (K. L. Das) Deputy Registrar The CPIO M/o. Corporate Affairs, W-Wing, 2nd Floor Kendriya Sadana, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034 Shri Puneet Gupta F-311, Ground Floor, SushantLok-II Sec-57, Gurgaon, Haryana