Central Information Commission
R Kumar vs India Tourism Development Corporation ... on 7 September, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/ITDCO/A/2021/132027
In the matter of
R Kumar
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.(ITDC)
5th Floor Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 15/10/2020 CPIO replied on : 15/11/2020 First appeal filed on : 18/01/2021 First Appellate Authority order dated : 16/02/2021 Second Appeal Filed on : 05/08/2021 Date of Hearing : 07/09/2022 Date of Decision : 07/09/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Present over intra VC
Respondent: M N Basha, GM & CPIO, present over intra VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information with regard to the works carried out by IET on behalf of ITDC at DDA Site, D-6, Vasant Kunj, CWG-2010 Project, Asoka Hotel and Mock-up sample flat:
1.(i) India Exports Today (IET) has written several letters and emails to ITDC towards pending payments against bills submitted from time to time but no action has been taken. In this connection, provide copies of Minutes/Notes of the meetings, noting file, details of action taken with regard to the same.
1.(ii) Provide copies of the e-mails, documents, including internal memos, communication, for the concerned departments, comments, instructions provided to dealing officers by Corporate office on IET communications.1
2. Provide copies of exchange of letters/e-mails between ITDC - DDA and DDA to ITDC and further ITDC to Govt. auditors such as CAG.
3. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as incomplete information was given to him. The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 15.11.2020.
Observations:
The Commission observes that the second appeal has been filed after the lapse of the laid down timeline as per Sec 19(3) of the RTI Act. The appellant has also failed to give any valid and acceptable reason explaining the delay that could have been considered as a sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing his second appeal after the stipulated time mentioned under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act nor was he able to explain the same when specifically asked during the hearing. His attention was also drawn to all the dates i.e. when the FAA's order was passed, the date of filing of the second appeal, which he did not refute. In the absence of any valid reason/sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing the appeal in time, it is appropriate to consider the case as time barred under Sec 19(3) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In view of the above, the appeal is considered as time barred under Sec 19(3) of the RTI Act and accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 2 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3