Central Information Commission
Mr.Rahul Gupta vs Central Information Commission on 19 April, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001700/SG/18503
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001700/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Rahul Gupta
158-Munirka Vihar,
New Delhi-110067
Respondent : Mr. S. Padmanabha,
CPIO & Dy. Secretary Central Information Commission 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 RTI application filed on : 11/04/2011 PIO replied : 02/05/2011 First appeal filed on : 06/05/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 31/05/2011 Second Appeal received on : 23/06/2011 The Appellant had given reference about certain file no's mentioned in his RTI application. Based on those the Appellant had sought the following information:
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Status of all mentioned cases and the reasons why The PIO had provided the file wise status of
they have not yet been taken up? all the files referred by the Appellant.
2. If any of the above case(s) have already been The files that are available in the registry
resolved, please permit me the inspection of such may be inspected by the Appellant with prior
case files. appointment with the undersigned.
3. Please provide complete details of case at serial no. As stated in Serial 3 of the query 1.
03, as mentioned above.
4. Please provide me with the no. of appeal/complaint During January-March 2011, a total of 21
cases filed against DDA and M/o Urban cases against the M/o Urban Development
Development for the period between 01/01/2011 up are registered in the database.
till 08/04/2011, which has already been resolved at CIC.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA disposed off the appeal directing the PIO to furnish the information with regard to query 1, 3 and 4 to the Appellant within 5-10 working days. With regard to query no. 2 the PIO was directed to facilitate the inspection after confirming it with the Appellant.Page 1 of 2
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO despite the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rahul Gupta;
Respondent: Mr. S. Padmanabha, CPIO & Dy. Secretary alongwith Mt. T. K. Mahopatra, Mr. K. L. Das and Mr. Vijay Bhalla PIOs of respective registries;
The PIO has provided the status of the files. However, it emerges that one file ahs been lost and the Appellant has provided a duplicate of the file to the PIO. The Appellant is aggrieved because a number of cases have not been decided and he had sought reasons for the long pendency. There are no reasons available in the Commission for the pendency of cases and hence the PIO has been unable to provide any answers to these since no information exists.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
Information available on the records has been provided. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 19 April 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SS) Page 2 of 2