Central Information Commission
Adarsh Kumar Handa vs Department Of Power on 28 April, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गगं नाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/POWER/A/2022/627634/DOPWR -UM
Mr. ADARSH KUMAR HANDA 1
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Nodal Officer(RTI Cell)
Department of Power, GNCTD,
8th level, B- Wing, Delhi
Secretariate, I. P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002
2. The PIO/Nodal Officer(RTI Cell)
DVB ETBF-2002(PENSION TRUST),
FIRST FLOOR, PRE-FABRICATED
BUILDING, Rajgaht Power House,
New Delhi-110002
....प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.04.2023
Date of Decision : 28.04.2023
Date of RTI application 12-12-2021
CPIO's response 21-12-2021
Date of the First Appeal 06-01-2022
First Appellate Authority's response 27-01-2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on following points:
Page 1 of 3The CPIO vide letter dated 21-12-2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 27-01-2022 directed the CPIO-Power to transfer first appeal of the appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: The appellant attended the hearing in person. Respondent: The respondent Shri Sanjay Kumar, PIO/SO (Power Department) and Sunil Kumar K.V., PIO Pension Trust attended the hearing.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that no information was furnished to him by the CPIO. The appellant further stated that the Power Department had wrongly forwarded the complaint to Secretary Pension (Trust), Rajghat Power House, Delhi, even though I had sought information from the Power Department instead of the Secretary, Pension Trust. He further informed that Secretary (Pension Trust) never respond to any complaint or letter since 2015. Further, the appellant informed that saving guilty employees or officers or protecting allegedly errant officers by giving false information comes under the category of criminal offense as IPC Section 182 & 218.Page 2 of 3
The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. The respondent further stated that the complaint was transferred to the department concerned because the same Department can only provide information as to from where the appellant retired.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and furnish correct and complete information to the Appellant, free of cost, 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 Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
(Information Commissioner) (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत)
(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पजं ीयक)
011-26182598
द्वदनांक / Date: 28.04.2023
GS
Page 3 of 3