Central Information Commission
Shailesh Maheshwari vs Housing And Urban Development ... on 24 November, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/HUDCO/A/2021/628948
Shailesh Maheshwari .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Executive Director-(Law)/I/C, Housing &
Urban Development Corporation (Minsitry of
Housing & Urban Affairs), Core-7-A,
HUDCO Bhawan, India Habitat Centre,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.03.2021
CPIO replied on : 07.04.2021
First appeal filed on : 13.04.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 17.05.2021
Second Appeal received at CIC : 09.07.2021
Date of Interim Hearing : 29.08.2022
Date of Interim Decision : 29.08.2022
Date of Final Decision 21.11.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 7
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 07.04.2021, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 13.04.2021. The FAA vide order dated 17.05.2021 held that :Page 2 of 7
• Written submissions received from theb PIO, vide letter dated 18.08.2022, as under:Page 3 of 7
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Mr. S P Tripathi, ED & FAA along with Mr. J D Nahar, AD(Law) & CPIO, both present in person.
The appellant reiterated the factual matrix of the case and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO as no details pertaining to the base interest rate has not been provided till date. He further stated that all the banks publish their basis interest rates online and submitted the copy of the same for the perusal of the Commission.
Upon Commissions instance, CPIO submitted that a written submission enumerating all the details has already been submitted for the perusal of the Commission on 18.08.2022. He further submitted that the Respondent authority has a reference rate and not the base rate of interest as sought by the Appellant.
The Appellant interjected to state that base rate of interest was mentioned in certain agreement of HUDCO signed with certain third party. The CPIO interjected to the said submission and submitted that the said document has no relevance to the instant matter and that their office is transparent in disseminating the relevant information and will provide everything that is available on records.
Interim Decision:
Commission, on the basis of submission of parties during hearing and perusal of case records deems it expedient to hear the instant matter at length and accordingly, provides an opportunity to the CPIO to submit a detailed written submission substantiating their arguments made during the course of the hearing. The written submission of CPIO as directed must reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the Appellant. Further, if the Appellant desires to counter the submission of CPIO, he may submit the same to the Commission within 15 days of receipt of the CPIO's submission.Page 4 of 7
The Commission after perusal of both the written submissions will pass its final orders.
Final Decision (21.11.2022):
Commission vide its interim decision dated 29.08.2022 provided an opportunity to the Respondent to file additional submission to substantiate their arguments. Further an opportunity was also provided to the Appellant to file counter submission.
• Written submission has been received from the Respondent vide letter dated 12.09.2022 as under:Page 5 of 7
Final Decision:
The Commission has received written submission dated 12.09.2022 from the CPIO, HUDCO and same has been taken on record. The Commission further notes that the Appellant has not availed the opportunity to file counter written submission.
Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their written submission along with annexures, dated 12.09.2022, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.Page 6 of 7
Perusal of records reveals that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act from available official records, has been duly provided by the Respondent, at this stage, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In the given circumstances, since the information held by the Respondent stands disseminated, no cause of action subsists under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 7 of 7