Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Balraj Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 4 August, 2021

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                              के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबागं गनाथमागग , मुननरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या /Second Appeal No.:              CIC/DDATY/A/2019/123236

 Balraj Singh                                             .....अपीलकताा/Appellant

                                    VERSUS/बनाम

 1. Public Information Officer,
 Assistant Director (Vigilance),
 Delhi Development Authority, B Block,
 5th Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023.

 2. Public Information Officer,
 Assistant Vigilance Officer, Disciplinary Cell,
 Delhi Development Authority,
 O/o Chief Vigilance Officer, Vikas Sadan,
 INA, New Delhi-110023.
                                                          ...प्रद्वतवािीगण/Respondent

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

  RTI application filed on          :   10.01.2019
  CPIO replied on                   :   08.02.2019
  First appeal filed on             :   11.02.2019
  First Appellate Authority order   :   Not on record
  Second Appealreceived at CIC      :   16.05.2019
  Date of Hearing                   :   04.08.2021
  Date of Decision                  :   04.08.2021



                      सूचनाआयुक्त: श्रीहीरालालसामररया
             Information Commissioner:             Shri HeeralalSamariya

  Information sought

:

The Appellant sought information as under:

PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 08.02.2019, as under: Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.02.2019.

Written submission of PIO dated 28.07.2021 is taken on record: Page 2 of 4 Grounds for Second Appeal:

The PIO has not provided any information to the Appellant. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: Present on phone.

Respondent: Mr. Bhupinder Yadav, PIO, AVO, DDA, present on phone. Appellant stated that appropriate information, in the instant RTI Application, has not been furnished to him. He further stated that complete set of information be furnished to him.

PIO submitted that an appropriate reply, in the instant matter, vide letter dated 08.02.2019, has already been furnished to the Appellant. He also submitted a detailed written submission before the Commission, vide letter dated 28.07.2021.

He further submitted that he would abide by the orders of the Commission, if any.

Decision:

The current milieu of the pandemic COVID-19 has necessitated the Commission to take some extraordinary steps in the disposal of cases to avoid further backlog and delays subverting the very purpose of RTI Act which includes inter alia hearing cases through audio conferencing. Commission, on the basis of proceedings and submission made by the Appellant during hearing, directs the PIO, to provide an opportunity to the Appellant, or any person duly authorized by Appellant on his behalf, to inspect relevant records, as sought by him in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date & time duly intimated to the Appellant by the PIO telephonically and in writing. In case, relevant information pertains to some other Branch/Department, then PIO should procure and provide relevant documents for inspection. PIO must make sure that information, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, should not be disclosed to the Appellant. Further, copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided subject to the payment of prescribed fees as per Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012. The said direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.

In case relevant records are still not traceable despite searching thoroughly, then PIO must file an appropriate affidavit stating that relevant records as sought in instant the RTI Application is not available in record despite searching thoroughly. The said affidavit shall be sent by the PIO to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant.

The said direction of the Commission must be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. No further action lies.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                                  Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल    सामररया)
                                   Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त)


Authenticated true copy
(अनिप्रमानित सत्यानित प्रनत)

Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514
                                                                          Page 4 of 4