Central Information Commission
Mrpeeyush Nashine vs Central Public Works Department (Er) on 22 July, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/002263/KY
Appellant : Shri PeeyushNashine
H. No. 95A, Room No. 29, Daya Ram Tokas
Munirka, New Delhi.
Public Authority : The CPIO
CPWD, Delhi Central Circle-VI
East Block-1, Level-6, R K Puram, New Delhi-110066
Date of Hearing : 22.07.2014
Date of Decision : 22.07.2014
Presence:
Appellant : Absent
PIO : Sh. K M Tripathi, S-Division & PIO, Sh. Gucharan Singh, M-Division & PIO,
Sh. Madan Mohan, DCC- VI & PIO and Sh. R K Singh, G-Division & PIO
FACTS:
1. Vide RTI application dated 24.06.2013, the Appellant sought information on the 3 issues.
2. CPIO, vide its response dated 15.07.2013, 07.08.2013 & 24.07.2013 provided the information to the appellant.
3. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 24.07.2013 as the desired information was not provided
4. First Appellate Authority (FAA), failed to dispose of the FA.
5. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 31.08.2013, are contained in the Memorandum of Appeal.
6. HEARING Appellant opted to be absent despite of our due notice to him. Respondents appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 24.06.2013, sought information from the respondents on three issues as contained therein. Respondents vide their response dated 15.07.2013, 07.08.2013 & 24.07.2013, allegedly provided the required information to the appellant on all issues. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 24.07.2013 before the FAA, who could not dispose of the FA. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIOs from different sections vide their responses dated 15.07.2013, 07.08.2013 & 24.07.2013, reportedly provided the required information to the appellant. Further, learned FAA, vide his order dated 01.08.2013, disposed of the FA by upholding the views of CPIO's response dated 08.07.2013, issued by Q-Division. However, there is no such letter made available on the case file. Thus, there appears learned FAA dealt with some other matter not with the captioned appeal. Therefore, the commission feels that the order of the FAA deserves to be quashed and set aside. As such, it is quashed and set aside being not legally tenable.
3. As per the statement of Sh. K M Tripathi, vide his response dated 24.07.2013, the required information was provided to the appellant. As per the contents of the response dated 24.07.2013, there appears to the Commission that the reply against issue no. II (a) is vague and incomplete.
4. As per the statement of Sh. R. K. Singh, he is concerned with issue no. II (a) to (c) of the RTI application. However, his response dated 15.07.2013, shows something else. Thus, it may be construed that reply given by Sh. R. K. Singh is also neither complete nor categorical against the issues, mentioned above.
5. Further, as per submissions made by Sh. Madan Mohan, Office Superintendent, the first appeal was not disposed of by the learned FAA. However, the direction given by the Sh. N K Khatri, learned FAA & Superintendent Engineer, on the note sheet dated 31.07.2012 (photocopy of the note-sheet provided) to inform the appellant that this office has already forwarded appellant's application to all the divisions under this circle and there is no need to forward the same again to divisions concerned. Therefore, CPIO, vide his letter dated 01.08.2013, informed the appellant accordingly.
6. In view of the position above, it is amply evident and even proved that First Appeal filed by appellant on 27.08.2012, before the learned FAA, was not disposed of by the learned FAA, in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act 2005.
7. The Commission heard the submissions made by respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; especifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 24.06.2013, respondent's response dated 15.07.2013, 07.08.2013 & 24.07.2013, FAA's order dated 01.08.2013 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
8. The Commission is of the considered view that it is a fit case to be remanded back to learned FAA with a direction to dispose of the Appellant's FA filed on 27.08.2012, in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act 2005, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. As such, the case is remanded back.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Copy of this Decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Authenticated true copy (K. L. Das) Deputy Registrar
1. The CPIO CPWD, Delhi Central Circle-VI East Block-1, Level-6, R K Puram, New Delhi-110066
2. Shri Peeyush Nashine H. No. 95A, Room No. 29, Daya Ram Tokas Munirka, New Delhi.