Central Information Commission
Abhay Pandey vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 30 June, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या/Complaint No. CIC/CCABH/C/2019/150654
Mr. Abhay Pandey ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
O/o. the District Valuation Officer
Income Tax Department, Qtr. No.
4,5,6 Type 0 III Income Tax
Colony
Kotra, Sultanabad, Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh-462003
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:-
RTI : 26-07-2019 FA : 04-09-2019 Complaint: 22-10-2019
CPIO : Not on Record FAO : 31.10.2019 Hearing: 21-06-2021
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o. the District Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department, Bhopal, seeking information on 10 points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Certified copy of attendance record (AEBAS) of Mr. Ram Kumar Naik (Superintending Engineer) when he comes the office and leaves the office for the period 17.07.2018 to till date;
(ii) Certified copy of tour program of Mr. Ram Kumar Naik for the period 17.07.2018 to till date, etc.
2. The response of CPIO is not on record. The complainant filed the first appeal dated 04.09.2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 31.10.2019. Thereafter, he filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 1 of 3Hearing:
3. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Ms. Smita Dahikar, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The written submissions of the respondent are taken on record.
5. The complainant submitted that till date information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 26.07.2019.
6. The respondent submitted that on 22.10.2019, the CPIO was appointed in their department and on 23.08.2019 and 31.10.2019, complete information has been provided to the complainant. The respondent submitted that delay in giving information is neither deliberate nor intentional. The complainant submitted that he has not received replies dated 23.08.2019 and 31.10.2019 from the respondent.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the complainant has not received information from the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that on 23.08.2019 and 31.10.2019, reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the complainant. The Commission observed that there is no malafide intention in obstruction of information. However, the Commission advised the respondent to again send a copy of their replies dated 23.08.2019 and 31.10.2019 to the complainant along with enclosures, if any, from registered post, within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this order. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
8. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 21-06-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),(011-26105682) Page 2 of 3 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO O/o. the District Valuation Officer Income Tax Department, Qtr. No. 4,5,6 Type 0 III Income Tax Colony Kotra, Sultanabad, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462003
2. Mr. Abhay Pandey Page 3 of 3