Central Information Commission
Rajiv Chugh vs Central Electricity Authority on 23 May, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CEATY/A/2021/120693-UM
Mr. Rajiv Chugh
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Central Electricity Authority
Sector 5, Rama Krishna Puram,
New Delhi, Delhi 110066
प्रनतिािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.05.2022
Date of Decision : 23.05.2022
Date of RTI application 18.01.2021
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2021
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 01.06.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points, as under:-
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. 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: Mr. Rajiv Chugh participated through AC, Respondent: Mr. Sharad Chandra Bhupesh, Dy. Director, participated through AC.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding a list of industries/factories which fall under Section 54 of the Factories Act, 1948 and did not come within the competency of CESE for inspection as objection is being raised by the competent authority on the inspections conducted by the CESEs referring to Section 54. He further stated that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 15.02.2021, they had furnished a reply as per record available in their office. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to re- examine the RTI application and furnish a detailed and an updated revised 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 receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित एवं सत्यापित प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 23.05.2022