Central Information Commission
Narender Singh vs Delhi State Industrial And ... on 27 June, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DSIDC/A/2021/113873-UM
Mr. Narender Singh
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure,
Development Corporation Ltd 74-A DSIIDC Office Building
Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi 110024
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.06.2022
Date of Decision : 27.06.2022
Date of RTI application 15.12.2020
CPIO's response 13.01.2021
Date of the First Appeal 28.01.2021
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 30.03.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information on 06 points.
Page 1 of 3The CPIO vide letter dated 13.01.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present in Person ( Rajender Singh Alahawat) Respondent:
The Appellant, who passed away in December 2021, was represented by his brother-in-law. While reiterating the contents of RTI Application he said that no proper reply was furnished to him and added that . that the Respondent Authority's officials were extremely rude and unhelpful to the appellant them despite the fact that his was a most legitimate cause which any one with a sense of justice would consider.
The Appellant further said that they have been going through a miserable condition as no help or information was given to them. He requested reimbursement of the money deposited at the time of booking the property or allotment of the property as mentioned in his RTI Application. He further claimed that one Chief Manager of the Respondent's side even threatened him by asking what will the Appellant do if the money was not given back. The Appellant mentioned that they have been running from pillar to post but all they have faced is the miscarriage of justice. He prayed to the Hon'ble Commission to direct the Respondent to furnish the information without any further delay and in interest of the principles of natural justice.
The Respondent remained absent during the hearing. Inspite of several efforts made by the Commission he could not be connected.Page 2 of 3
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant and on the perusal of the documents on record, the Commission finds that mere mode of asking information cannot be the reason for denying legitimate information to the Appellant though the Appellant can be advised to adhere to the stipulated procedure while seeking information as prescribed under the RTI law.
Moreover , the Commission takes a very serious view of the Respondent in not providing the information in such a genuine case of justice taking cover behind a technicality and thus showing utter insensitivity in doing so. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to furnish a proper reply to the Appellant strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The commission also directs the appellant to follow the procedure mentioned under the RTI Law while seeking information in future.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
(Information Commissioner) (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत)
(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598
द्वदनांक / Date: 27.06.2022
Page 3 of 3