Central Information Commission
Mrp Balachandar vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 4 September, 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/SS/A/2013/002132/KY
Appellant : Shri P. Balachandar
Plot No. 8B, Jai Flats, 1st Floor-F2
Kamaraj Garden Street, Medavakkam, Chennai-600100
Public Authority : The CPIO
M/o. Corporate Affairs
A-Wing, 5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
Date of Hearing : 04.09.2014
Date of Decision : 04.09.2014
Presence:
Appellant : Absent
CPIO : Sh. Sanjay Sood, Dy Dir & CPIO and Smt. I S Chawdhwree, CPIO
FACTS:
1. Vide RTI application dated 18.04.2013, the Appellant sought information on the 8 issues.
2. CPIO, vide its response dated 09.05.2013 transferred the application to the concerned officer.
3. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 14.05.2013 ,as the desired information was not provided
4. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide its order dated 03.06.2013, upheld the decision of CPIO.
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 18.04.2013, sought information from the respondents on eight issues. Respondents vide their response dated 26.04.2013 & 09.05.2013, allegedly not provided the required information to the appellant on all issues. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 14.05.2013 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 03.06.2013, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO, vide his response dated 09.05.2013, transferred the appellant's RTI application dated 18.04.2013, under section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005, to the concerned CPIO of SFIO for taking necessary action in the matter. However, CPIO-SFIO, vide its response dated 26.04.2013 (wrongly mentioned), also denied the required information to the appellant by taking plea under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005. It is also submitted by CPIO- SFIO, that appellant failed to file first appeal before the learned FAA of SFIO.
3. Thus, as it is highlighted above, the appellant failed to file the FA before the FAA of SFIO for its adjudication and instead, he filed the same before the learned FAA, M/o. Corporate Affairs, who vide his order dated 03.06.2013, disposed of the FA by upholding his CPIO's response dated 09.05.2013.
4. It is worth to mention here that neither CPIO nor FAA of M/o. Corporate Affairs, is directly concerned with the subject matter of appellant's RTI Application. However, it pertains to SFIO. Thus, RTI application must have been moved to the CPIO-SFIO and in case appellant is not satisfied with the reply of CPIO-SFIO, FA should have been filed before the FAA-SFIO, which has not been done by the appellant, deliberately, in the present case. Thus, the appellant's failed to avail the statutory remedy available under the provisions of RTI Act 2005, properly.
5. 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 18.04.2013, respondent's response dated 09.05.2013, FAA's order dated 03.06.2013 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
6. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that appellant failed to avail, properly, the efficacious and alternate legal remedy, existed under the RTI Act 2005 i.e. to file First Appeal under section 19 (1) of the RTI Act 2005 before the Learned FAA-SFIO but rather he filed a FA before the FAA-M/o Corporate Affairs, who is not concerned in the matter. Thus, the Commission feels that appellant failed to exhaust the alternate statutory remedy, properly. With these observations the appellant's second appeal is hereby closed.
7. Further, the Commission also feels that it would be appropriate and even justified to grant a liberty to the appellant to file the first appeal against the CPIO-SFIO's response dated 26.04.2013, before the learned FAA-SFIO for its adjudication. Further, learned FAA-SFIO, is also directed not to raise the issue of limitation of 30 days while entertaining the FA and deciding the FA on merits in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act 2005. Thus, the liberty is granted.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (K. L. Das) Deputy Registrar The CPIO M/o. Corporate Affairs A-Wing, 5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 Shri P. Balachandar Plot No. 8B, Jai Flats, 1st Floor-F2 Kamaraj Garden Street, Medavakkam, Chennai-600100