Central Information Commission
Srikumar Sridharan vs Indian Coast Guard on 22 June, 2021
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/INDCG/A/2020/665263
In the matter of:
Srikumar Sridharan
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Tatrakshak Mukhyalaya,
Coast Guard Headquarters
National Stadium Complex, New Delhi - 110001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 01/01/2020 CPIO replied on : 06/02/2020 First appeal filed on : 06/02/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 03/03/2020 Second Appeal dated : 04/03/2020 Date of Hearing : 21/06/2021 Date of Decision : 21/06/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: DIG D S Saini, CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information regarding Redressal of Grievance for grant of NFFU made vide letters dated 12 Jul 19 and 22 Aug 19:
1. Provide a copy of the complete up to date file notings of the analysis of his case at CGHQ and with MoD.
2. Provide the present status of the case.
3. Provide the estimated time line for resolution of his case.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
1Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that at the time of filing of the RTI application, as his case was being processed, an appropriate reply was given to him at the relevant time.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that initially an interim reply was given by the CPIO on 06.02.2020 whereby he was informed that since the case is being deliberated upon, the information is being obtained by Professional Directorate and will be provided as soon as possible. Thereafter, the FAA vide his order dated 03.03.2020 had directed the CPIO to provide a suitable reply to the appellant.
On a query to the CPIO as to whether any reply was given to the appellant in compliance with the FAA's order, he submitted that no further reply has been given till date. The Commission finds that it has been almost a year since no updated reply has been given to the appellant even after the FAA had directed the CPIO to do so.
The Commission therefore expresses its displeasure at the conduct of the concerned CPIO for handling the RTI application is such a casual manner.
Be that as it may, since no final reply has been provided to the appellant on points no. 1 & 2 till date, the CPIO is directed to provide an additional reply to the appellant giving an updated status of his case along with all the relevant documents, if available. For point no. 3, no relief can be given as the same being hypothetical in nature is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant on points no. 1 & 2 as per the discussions held during the hearing within a period of 10 days from the date of issue of this order under intimation to the Commission.2
The concerned CPIO is also cautioned to remain careful while handling the RTI applications in future so that such a lapse as was done in this case is not repeated in future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3