Central Information Commission
Rajiv Sinha vs Prasar Bharati Secretariat on 11 November, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DGDOR/A/2021/640782/PBSEC
Rajiv Sinha ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Doordarshan Directorate,
RTI Cell, Doordarshan Bhavan,
Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10/11/2022
Date of Decision : 10/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07/06/2021
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 09/07/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03/09/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 07.06.2021 seeking the following information:
1. "File noting (efile/manual) in which an email letter send to DGDD on 28.11.2020 at 21.05 PM by DDG(E)/H00 DDK Patna and reminder email dated 16.01.2021 at 10.07 AM by Sri Kalyan Dutta, DDG(E) o/o ADG(E) 1 Kolkata on the subject- comment of Head Of Office, DDK Patna on various grievances/ complaints received through mail/ speed post from ex casuals, processed and thereby decision taken on the second paragraph of the said mail i.e approval to institute proceedings including defamation case in consonance with para no 3.12 of cvc manual."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.07.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Sanjay Kumar Mishra, DDA, DG & CPIO along with D P Singh, Dy. Director General & CPIO and Vijay Anand, SO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO as the emails referred to be him relate to some complaint against him.
The CPIO tendered his regret at the outset for the omission to reply to the instant RTI Application and submitted that the pendency of the RTI Application was noted only upon receipt of the hearing notice and thereafter a reply was provided to the Appellant on 07.11.2022 stating that the information sought for by the Appellant is not specific and therefore may be treated as NIL.
Upon further arguments of the Appellant as well as a query from the Commission about the availability of the information related to the averred emails, the CPIO clarified that the said emails are not found/traceable which is why he is not in a position to facilitate the Appellant in this regard even if he were to specify the requirement with respect to these emails.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that CPIO has adequately explained the omission to provide a reply to the instant RTI 2 Application at the original instance and for lack of malafides, no action is warranted in this regard.
As regards the information sought for in the RTI Application as well as the submissions/contentions of the parties during the hearing, the Commission directs the CPIO to file an appropriate affidavit stating that the averred emails are not available in their record. The said affidavit shall be sent to the Commission by the CPIO with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant within 15 days form the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3