Central Information Commission
Mrsujoypoddar vs Election Commission Of India on 27 July, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
Decision No.CIC/SM/A/2012/901897/SB/
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2012/901897/SB
Dated: 27072015
Complainant: Shri Sujoy Poddar,
29B, Abdul Latif Street,
Belgharia, Kolkata,
West Bengal700 056.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer/
Chief Electoral Officer,
21 N>S. Road, Kolkata,
West Bengal700 001.
Date of Hearing: 27 .07.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Sujoy Poddar had filed second appeal/complaint with the Commission on the ground of nondisposal of his RTI application dated 24.01.2012 by the CPIO/Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal within the time stipulated. The complainant directly approached the Commission with his complaint. Taking cognizance of complainant's second appeal/complaint, the Commission vide Order No. CIC/SM/ 2012/ 900463 dated 12.04.2012 directed the Appellate Authority/concerned concerned to inquire into the allegations made by the complainant and after giving him an opportunity of hearing, to pass an appropriate order with a view to ensuring that the desired information is provided to the complainant without further loss of time and also to forward before 14.5.2012 the explanation of the CPIO in writing for not providing the information in time so that a decision could be taken on the imposition of penalty on the CPIO in terms of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
2. The said Order of the Commission also stated that in case the complainant is not satisfied with the orders of the Appellate Authority, he is free to approach this Commission again in second appeal.
3. As provided in the above Order of the Commission, the complainant has filed second complaint dated 19.10.2012 before the Commission on the ground that despite the Order of the Commission the CPIO did not provide information on point No. 1(d), (e), (f), (h) and
(k) on the ground that the document has not been traced out and also did not provide information at point No. 2 (a)(e) and point No. (3) - (5) as sought by him in his RTI application.
Hearing:
4. The complainant Shri Sujoy Poddar attended the audio hearing. The respondent Shri Amitabha Sengupta, SPIO and Joint Election Officer, West Bengal was present during the hearing.
5. The complainant submitted that the CPIO did not provide complete information. The documents sought by him at point No. 1(d), (e), (f), (h) and (k) were not provide on the ground that the document has not been traced out. The CPIO also did not provide information relating to serial No. 2 (a) (e) and point No. (3) - (5). The complainant further submitted that as per Rule 32(1) of the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 the above mentioned document shall be kept in the Office of the Registration Officer until the expiration of one year after the completion of the next intensive revision.
6. The respondent admitted that despite the Commission's order dated 12.04.2012, complete information is yet to be provided to the complainant. Further, he submitted that in compliance of the order of CIC, the State PIO had directed the District Election Officer (DEO), Burdwan, West Bengal to ensure that the desired information was provided to the complainant and explanation of the CPIO in written for not providing the information to the applicant is also needed to be sent to the Commission. However, the DEO, Burdwan, West Bengal, only forwarded the report the SDO, Katwa vide his letter dated 23.04.2012 which however did not provide complete information. The respondent requested that three weeks time may be provided so that due efforts can be made to trace out the document and supply the requisite information to the complainant.
Decision:
7. The Commission considered the request of the respondent to provide for some more time to trace out the document and provide information to the complainant. The Commission directs the respondent to trace out the document and provide information to the complainant within three weeks.
8. The Commission also directs the SPIO, in case the document is not traced out, to enquire into the matter and fix the responsibility for the loss/ misplacement of the document and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/ officials responsible for the loss/misplacement of the documents.
9. The Commission takes a very serious view of the fact that the District Election Officer, Burdwan, West Bengal and the CPIO concerned did not comply with the direction of the Commission.
10. As per the Commission's direction dated 12.04.2012, the Commission directed the Appellate Authority concerned to inquire into the allegation made by the complainant and after giving him an opportunity of hearing, to pass an appropriate order. However, the Appellate Authority did not take any action on the Commission's direction. In view of this the Appellate Authority should explain the reason for not complying with the Commission's direction dated 12.04.2012. The explanation of the Appellate Authority concerned should reach the Commission on or before 17.08.2015.
11. The complaint is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy.
(V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer