Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Controller General Of Defence Accounts ... on 20 January, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/CGDAC/A/2021/658086
In the matter of
Samir Sardana ... Appellant
VS
1. Central Public Information Officer
O/o CGDA, Ulan Batar Road,
Palam, Delhi Cantt - 110010
2. Central Public Information Officer
Engineer- in - Chief's Branch,
Military Engineer Services,
Dte of Contract Managment,
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi - 110 011.
3. Central Public Information Officer
Canteen Stores Departments,
Ministry of Defence, ADELPHI - 119,
M. K. Road, Mumbai - 400020.
... Respondents
RTI application filed on : 06/08/2021 CPIO replied on : 17/08/2021, 16/02/2022 First appeal filed on : 24/10/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 09/11/2021 Second Appeal dated : 30/12/2021 Date of Hearing : 19/01/2023 Date of Decision : 19/01/2023 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: B N Singh, Director Contract and CPIO, Engineer- in - Chief's Branch, V.V.S Brahmaji Rao, Senior Accounts Officer and CPIO, present over VC at CIC 1 Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
A. Blacklisted Vendors
1. Provide the list of blacklisted vendors of CSD and MES as at the end of the accounting year 2019, 2020 and 2021.
B. Section 4(1)
1. Provide the online link of the tenders floated by CSD and MES for procurement and works contracts.
2. Provide the list of empanelled suppliers of CSD and MES as at the end of the accounting year of 2020 or the online link where the said information is available u/s 4(1) of the RTI Act.
3. Provide a copy of the procurement policy manual for CSD and MES.
4. And other related information.
C And other information related to CVO, prior period accounting, QD, Grants, Inventories, etc. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant vide written submissions dated 18.01.2023 submitted that the PIO made a false and wrong transfer to each of the transferee PIOs who also made no onward transfers and the PIO was sent several reminders; there is also a transfer made to Strategic Forces Command in December 2021 which was irrelevant. He further submitted that the FAA gave no hearing, and passed no speaking order .There is one reply from the CVO, but only for Delhi Cantt also there is one reply from Directorate of Contract Management of MES dated 16.02.2022 (after 200 days), for black listed vendors and empanelled suppliers
- but not for MES as a whole. It was also stated that there is one reply dated 7.12.2021, by CSD - M.A Venkateshwaran, which states that information is being obtained but has still not been sent, also this PIO has admitted that the CGDA has made a wrong transfer to the CSD; the same PIO has also admitted that the sample contracts of alcohol and other suppliers were not provided. He alleged that the PIO has also made a deliberate non reply for damaged goods 2 and procurement policy manual and other manuals, he submitted that the PIO stated that tenders data is available online but it is not. He further submitted that the PIO also did not provide the list of empanelled suppliers and that the PIO also claims that there is no black listed vendor which cannot be true.
The CPIO Engineer- in - Chief's Branch submitted that there was no first appeal filed in respect of his reply. The CPIO Canteen Stores Departments also submitted that there was no first appeal filed in respect of his reply. The CPIO CGDA reiterated the reply given on 17.08.2021.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO, respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 17.08.2021 provided a point-wise reply to the appellant and replied in respect of point no. (i) stating that he does not hold the record of complaints for the entire Defence Accounts Department. However, the complaints received and disposed against officials up to SAO level, during the period 2018-2020 so far as the CPIO was concerned was provided. It was also informed that there were no cases wherein the CVC recommended Admin action. In respect of point no. (iv) it was categorically informed that number of cases wherein the CVC recommended Major/Minor penalty MES in last 7 years is not pertaining to his office.
At this point, it is relevant to mention here that the first appeal was filed on 24.10.2021. Therefore, the delayed reply of CPIO Engineer- in - Chief's Branch i.e after the second appeal and CSD - M.A Venkateshwaran i.e in the month of December 2021 cannot be a reasonable ground to question the appellant's not filing first appeal to their FAA. It was the duty of the CPIO to provide a timely reply.
The FAA, CGDA vide order dated 09.11.2021 disposed of the first appeal and upheld the CPIO's reply of CGDA.
It was also noted that the CPIO, respondent no. 2 provided a point-wise reply on 16.02.2022, wherein in respect of point no. 1, the CPIO categorically replied that there is no list of blacklisted vendors available with the HQ for MES. In respect of point no. 2 the CPIO replied that tenders floated by MES are available in public domain. He was directed to the website https:/mes.gov.in. In respect of point no. 3 the CPIO replied that there is no list of empanelled suppliers available with the Directorate of Contract Management.
3The Commission observed that information was sought on various different subject matters by the applicant, therefore, the CPIOs were asked to explain whether all the points raised were covered in the reply and they answered in the affirmative.
Decision:
Be that as it may, the respondent no. 3 Central Public Information Officer Canteen Stores Departments is directed to address the points raised in the written submissions of the appellant dated 18.01.2023 and send a suitable reply to the appellant as per the availability of records, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
As far as the reply of respondent no. 1 and 2 are concerned, the same were found just and proper.
The appellant is advised to refrain from asking for information relating to multiple respondents in a single application to avoid confusion and delay. Furthermore, he is advised to frame his RTI application in a simple and specific manner so that information sought is comprehensible to the respondents.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4