Central Information Commission
Adarsh Tripathi vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 4 December, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2018/158858
Shri Adarsh Tripathi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Home Affairs,
38, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi-110001
Date of Hearing : 03.12.2020
Date of Decision : 04.12.2020
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.03.2018
PIO replied on : -
First Appeal filed on : 07.05.2018
First Appellate Order on : -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 26.09.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.03.2018seeking information on following 03 points:-
Having not received any information from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.05.2018 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrievedover non receipt of information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 1 of 2
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO and OSD (Arms) vide letter dated 27.11.2020 wherein it was stated that the RTI application was replied vide letter dated 18.04.2018 and the first appeal was decided vide order dated 04.01.2019. A copy of the aforementioned replies was enclosed with the written submission.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He denied the receipt of any reply/ order from the CPIO/ FAA.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Ranjeet Shrivastava, US Armsthrough audio conference. He stated that vide another letter dated 12.04.2018, the Appellant had enclosed the RTI application dated 23.03.2018 under consideration herein which was suitable replied vide letters mentioned in the written submission. Hence, no further action was pending at their end.
Decision:
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission noted that the CPIO reply dated 18.04.2018 enclosed with the written submission was sent to an incorrect address vis the vis' the address mentioned in the RTI application/ Second Appeal which is perhaps the reason why the same was not received by the Appellant, till date. The conduct of CPIO therefore smacks of utter callousness as the address mentioned in the reply refers to "District Bhadori, Madhya Pradesh" whereas the Appellant is a resident of "District Bhadoi, Uttar Pradesh". Thus, the Commission cautions Shri Sujeet Kumar, Second in Command who had signed the aforementioned reply to remain extremely alert and vigilant while discharging his duties and responsibilities under the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission also directs Shri Ranjeet Shrivastava, US Arms to forward to the Appellant on his correct postal address mentioned in the RTI application/ Second Appeal, a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission. A compliance report pertaining to the aforementioned direction should reach the Commission by 31.12.2020.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2