Central Information Commission
Neel Kamal vs Mcd on 11 November, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MCDND/A/2023/646193
Neel Kamal .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Chief Auditor,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
E-1 Block, 27th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,
Minto Road, New Delhi - 110002 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.11.2024
Date of Decision : 11.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.06.2023
CPIO replied on : 18.07.2023
First appeal filed on : 21.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 04.09.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.09.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.06.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Just to pacify complainants a Committee was constituted to look into the complaints and the said Committee reported that all went well during said examination however they pointed needle towards some candidates on basis of CCTV Footage and their results were withheld but later on Page 1 of 5 some of them also were passed and some became fail. On which ground they became pass/fail?
2. Please provide the Copy of report submitted by constituted committee.
3. In previous SOG- Exam the marks had been published of all passed candidates, why the name and marks were not published in SOGE-227
4. Please provide the copy of consideration of competent authority in r/o of my request letter dated 16.05.23, 18.05.23 and 19.05.23.
5. How much money has been paid for checking the answer sheet of paper-
7? A proof of the same must be provided.
6. On which ground Examiner check the answer sheet? If check with answer key then kindly provide the answer key of paper-7.
7. An appointment letter dated 06.06.23 with MCA regarding unfair marks in paper-7 of SOGE-22 has been sent to your Office. Copy of rejection of appointment must be given. Who is authorized for rejection of appointment? Does any official/officer have to take prior appointment to meet MCA Office?
8. What is the power of consultant posted presently in MCA Office?
9. Is consultant has power to sign on Grievances? If yes, kindly attach the rule as per law.
10. Please provide copy of orders in r/o assigned authority to check the answer sheet paper wise of SOG-PART-2-2022."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.07.2023 stating as under:
S. Information sought Information supplied No. 1 Just to pacify complainants a Information sought for by you is Committee was constituted to interrogatory nature. Hence, CPIO is look into the complaints and the not bound to furnish the information said Committee reported that all of the interrogatory nature.
went well during said
examination however they
pointed needle towards some
candidates on basis of CCTV
Footage and their results were
withheld but later on some of
them also were passed and some
became fail. On which ground
they became pass/fail?
2 Please provide the Copy of report Under sub-section (e) of Section 8 of
submitted by constituted RTI Act, 2005, this information does
committee. not cover the larger public interest.
Page 2 of 5
3 In previous SOG- Exam the marks Under O.M. No. 1/7/2009-IR dated:-
had been published of all passed 01-06- 2009 issued by Ministry of
candidates, why the name and Personnel, Public Grievances &
marks were not published in Pensions, CPIO is not bound to
SOGE-227 furnish reply as RTI Act does not
include answers to the questions like
'why'
4 Please provide the copy of Copy of consideration of competent
consideration of competent authority in r/o your request letter
authority in r/o of my request dated 16.05.2023, 18.05.2023 and
letter dated 16.05.23, 18.05.23 19.05.2023 was already sent to you
and 19.05.23. vide letter No.
MCA/Admn./ConfdI/SOGE-2022/10-
29/2023/202 dated 31.05.2023.
5 How much money has been paid Honorarium is still to be paid.
for checking the answer sheet of
paper-7? A proof of the same
must be provided
6 On which ground Examiner check Information sought for by you is
the answer sheet? If check with interrogatory nature. Hence, CPIO is
answer key then kindly provide not bound to furnish the information
the answer key of paper-7. of the interrogatory nature. 7 An appointment letter dated Your request on your issues have 06.06.23 with MCA regarding already been considered but not unfair marks in paper-7 of SOGE- accepted by the Competent 22 has been sent to your Office. Authority.
Copy of rejection of appointment must be given. Who is authorized for rejection of appointment?
Does any official/officer have to take prior appointment to meet MCA Office?
8 What is the power of consultant They will perform such work as may posted presently in MCA Office? be assigned to him from time to time 9 Is consultant has power to sign on Consultant has not power to sign on Grievances? If yes, kindly attach Grievances. the rule as per law.
10 Please provide copy of orders in Under sub-section (e) of Section 8 of r/o assigned authority to check RTI Act, 2005, this information does the answer sheet paper wise of not cover the larger public interest. SOG-PART-2-2022 Page 3 of 5 Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 04.09.2023, held as under.
"In view of the above, this office had conveyed you for the meeting with the First Appellate Authority on 09.08.2023 at 11.00 A.M. As per schedule mentioned in the letter of this office, the meeting was organized with First Appellate Authority. It is also stated that you had not submitted the queries in written, however, the queries raised by you during the meeting had been clarified positively."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Mann, Assistant Audit Officer & CPIO and Shri Rajpal Meena, Senior Auditor & APIO present in person.
The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that vide their letter dated 18.07.2023, they have provided complete point-wise reply/information to the Appellant as per his RTI application. Further, the Appellant was present in his first appeal hearing where his issues has been clarified positively.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal is aggrieved that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent as per his RTI application.
The Commission observes that the Respondent has wrongly not provided information to the Appellant on point Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the RTI application. Reply given by the CPIO on such points are not satisfactory and need to be re-examined.Page 4 of 5
In view of the above, the Respondent is directed to re-examine the RTI application dated 20.06.2023 of the Appellant on point Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 and give revised point-wise reply/information to the Appellant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The FAA is directed to ensure compliance with this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
THE FAA, Office of the Chief Auditor, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, E-1 Block, 27th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center, Minto Road, New Delhi - 110002 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)