Central Information Commission
Jyoti Rachhoya vs State Election Commission Delhi on 25 February, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SECDL/A/2023/121140
JYOTI RACHOYYA .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
State Election Commission,
Nigam Bhawan, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi - 110006 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.02.2025
Date of Decision : 24.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.02.2023
PIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 09.03.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 20.04.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.05.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 06.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"निवेदि इस प्रकार है कक उपरोक्त एक्ट के तहत वार्ड ि. 34 स आम आदमी पाटी से उम्मीदवार श्रीमनत हे मलता के िामाकरण पत्र के बाबत प्रार्थी िे शिकायते की र्थी शिकायतों पर की गई कायडवाही के संबंध में निम्ि प्रिि इस प्रकार है:-
1. बताया जाए प्रार्थी की शिकायत पर क्या आर.ओ कायाडलय िे श्रीमनत हे मलता को कोई िोटटस जारी कर पूछा और जवाब आिे पर क्या ररमाईन्र्रं िोटटस टदया यटद हॉ तो िोटटसों की प्रनतया प्रमाणणत करके दी जाए?Page 1 of 4
2. बताया जाए क्या उपरोक्त श्रीमनत हे मलता िे प्रश्ि ि 1 के िोटटसों के अिुसार कोई जवाब दाणिल क्या यटद हााँ तो जवाब की प्रनतया दस्तावेजो के सार्थ प्रमाणणत करके दी जाए?
3. बताया जाए कक श्रीमनत हे मलता द्वारा िामाकरण पत्र में गलत सूचिाए दे िे पर क्या चुिाव आयोग िामाकरण पत्र को रद्द करिे की कायडवाही कर रहा है यटद हों तो क्या कायडवाही कर रहा है उसकी की गई कायडवाही की प्रमाणणत प्रनतया सत्यापपत करके दी जाए?"
Having not received any response from PIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 20.04.2023, held as under.
"1. The Notice issued to the appellant for hearing on 19/04/2023, in response to the notice Shri Chattar Singh Rachhoya on behalf of Smt. Jyoti Rachhoya appeared on 19/04/2023, P.I.O./Suptd. (SEC) & Shri Suchet Singh, AERO (Ward No. 32 to 36) were also present.
2. Heard. He Is aggrieved of the incomplete information. R.O. is directed to provide the requisite Information at the earlier under RTI Act & Rules framed there under."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Chatar Singh Rachhoya, appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Respondent: Shri Manjeet Hooda, Assistant Electoral Registration Office (AERO), AC-08, appeared in person.
The representative of the appellant inter alia submitted that information sough was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that inadvertently the RTI application of the appellant could not be replied. He apologised for the same and assured that such incident would not recur in Page 2 of 4 future. Further, the respondent sought time to provide response to the RTI application.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that no reply was given by the respondent till the date of hearing. The order of the FAA was also not complied with by the PIO. The respondent PIO apologised for his conduct and sought time to provide the information.
It is noted that the respondent has not made any such efforts to respond to the RTI application even after the receipt of the hearing notice.
The Commission takes a very serious view of the non-response of the RTI application by the concerned PIO. The Public Information Officers are entrusted with the responsibility of providing information to the citizens under the RTI Act. It is expected that the PIO on receipt of a request shall as expeditiously as possible, furnish appropriate response/reply to the appellant and provide information within stipulated time. In this case, the PIO did not discharge his responsibilities properly. Therefore, the PIO is cautioned to be careful in future and such incident should not recur in future.
In addition to the above, the respondent PIO is directed to provide the information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The FAA to ensure compliance of 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 Page 3 of 4 Copy To:
The FAA State Election Commission, Nigam Bhawan, Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 Copy To:
The FAA State Election Commission, NCT of Delhi & UT Chandigarh, Nigam Bhawan, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)