Central Information Commission
Urmila Devi vs Central Vigilance Commission on 29 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/129347
Urmila Devi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Central Vigilance Commission, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.03.2023 FA : 12.04.2023 SA : 07.07.2023
CPIO : 31.03.2023 FAO : 08.05.2023 Hearing : 27.11.2024
Date of Decision: 29.11.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Date 15, May 2013, आपको दी िशकायत पर ा कायवाही ई हम सूचना उपल करायी जाय ।
(ii) Date-14, Aug 2013, आपको दी िशकायत पर ा कायवाही ई हम सूचना उपल करायी जाय।
(iii) Date-29, Sep 2017, आपको दी िशकायत पर ा - कायवाही ई हमे सूचना उपल करायी जाय।
Page 1 of 5
(iv) तीनों िशकायतो पर िनगम ने जो भी रपोट अपने िहसाब से बनाकर भेजी होगी सभी की
कॉपी की ित हमे उपल करायी जाय।
(v) िद ी नगर िनगम म कानून के अनुसार काम नहीं होता है । इस िवभाग म ब त बड़ा
ाचार है । जुगाड और िसफा रश से काम होता है । आयोग ारा ा कायवाही िनगम
वालों के खलाफ की जाती है । सूचना उपल करायी जाय।
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 31.03.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
पैरा 1 से 3: आपकी िशकायत सं ा 15226/2013/सतकता-8 एवं 23717/2013/सतकता-8 को आव क कारवाई के िलए मु सतकता अिधकारी, एमसीडी को इले ॉिनक मा म से अ ेिषत िकया गया था तथा िदनांक 29.09.2017 की अ िशकायत, िजसे िशकायत सं ा 87762/2017/सतकता-8 के अधीन पंजीकृत िकया गया था, को िदनांक 03.11.2017 के कायालय ापन ारा आव क कारवाई के िलए एमसीडी, दि ण िद ी को इले ॉिनक मा म से अ ेिषत िकया गया था ( ित संल )।
पैरा - 4: आपकी सुिवधा के िलए, आरटीआई अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 6 (3) के अंतगत, आपके आरटीआई आवेदन को के ीय लोक सूचना अिधकारी, एमसीडी को आपकी िशकायतों पर की गई कारवाई /उिचत सूचना उपल कराने के िलए ह ां त रत िकया जा रहा है ।
पैरा - 5: आपके ारा मांगी गई सूचना िशकायत का समाधान मांगने के प म है , जो आर.टी.आई अिधिनयम के ावधानों के अंतगत सूचना की ेणी म नहीं आती है ोंिक आवेदक केवल आरटीआई अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 2 (च) के अंतगत यथा प रभािषत "सूचना" ही मांग सकता है ।
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.04.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.05.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.Page 2 of 5
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.07.2023.
5. The appellant along with her representative and on behalf of the respondent Shri B.D. Gajghate, Director, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not taken appropriate action on her complaints regarding issuing of challans and non-allotment of shop as per MCD's allotment schemes.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the erstwhile CPIO had provided a point-wise reply to the appellant on 31.03.2023. They relied upon the contents of the FAA's order providing the gist of necessary action taken in respect of the appellant's complaints, extracted below:
"Shri B.D. Gajghate, Director & CPIO concerned furnished reply vide communication No. CVC/RT1/22/712 dated 31.03.2023, stating that your complaint registration No. 15226/2013/Vigilance-8 & 23717/2013/Vigilances were electronically forwarded to CVO, MCD for necessary action and another complaint dated 29.9.2017 registration No. 87762/2017/vigilance & was also electronically forwarded to CVO, MCD for necessary action. Further, as per the Complaint Handling Policy of the Commission available in CVC website www.cvc.gov.in, the Commission do not expect a reply/report from the concerned authority in respect of the complaints sent for necessary action. Further, your RTI application in terms of section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005, has been transferred to CPIO, MCD for providing appropriate information to you.
The Appellant has made an Appeal dated 12.04.2023 on the ground that "Not satisfy with the reply of CPIO". The appellant has requested to the First Appellate Authority, CVC to provide fair and correct information.Page 3 of 5
On a perusal of records, it is noted that para-wise reply has been provided to the Applicant by the CPIO/CVC. She has been informed that her complaints were forwarded for necessary action to CVO, MCD as per Complaint Handling Policy of the Commission. Further, the RTI Application was transferred to the CPIO/MCD u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for providing information. It is observed that the RTI application has been dealt appropriately by the CPIO/CVC. CPIO, MCD has to furnish information to the RTI applicant. In case, reply has not been received from CPIO, MCD, she may file appeal before First Appellate Authority of MCD."
The CPIO further requested the appellant to approach the CVO, MCD, to get the latest progress on their complaints.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the respondent having provided the information, as per latest action taken on the complaint and as per the records available under their custody, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 29.11.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission, CPIO, RTI Cell, Satarkata Bhawan, Block A, CGO Complex, INA, New Delhi - 110023
2. Urmila Devi Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)