Central Information Commission
Sana Jain vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 14 May, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ADDDM/A/2024/602425
Sana Jain .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of District Magistrate,
District South, MB Road, Saket,
New Delhi-110068 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.05.2025
Date of Decision : 13.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.07.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 28.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 11.07.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. What is the status of File No. 297 filed before the MSME Council (SOUTH) [Case No. 297/DM(S)/SDM(HQ)/MSEFC/Delhi/2022 dated 09.09.2022] filed by Aimtrex Technologies Pvt Ltd against Haryana Police Housing Corporation?Page 1 of 5
2. Please provide copy of the order dated 17.03.2023 passed in Case No. 297/DM(S)/SDM(HQ)/MSEFC/Delhi/2022 by which the case was referred for arbitration.
3. Please provide copy of the orders dated 31.01.2023 and 27.02.2023 in Case No. 297/DM(S)/SDM(HQ)/MSEFC/Delhi/2022 dated 09.09.2022.
4. By order dated 17.03.2023 of the MSME Council, the File No. 297 [Case No. 297/DM(S)/SDM(HQ)/MSEFC/Delhi/2022] was referred to arbitration. Please provide update on the status of referral to arbitration. Specifically, please indicate whether file has been transferred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre/any other institution for commencement of arbitration proceedings and if yes on what date?
5. Please indicate officer in-charge at MSME Council (SOUTH) who is responsible for transfer of the files of the matters (which have been referred to arbitration) to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre/any other institution?
6. On average, how much time is taken between referral of a case to arbitration by the MSME Council (SOUTH) and actual commencement of arbitration?
7. On average, how much time is taken for first listing of a matter before MSME Council (SOUTH)?
8. In case of File No. 297, matter was filed on 09.09.2022 but listed for the first time only on 31.01.2023 after a delay of around 5 months. Is period of 5 months for listing of a case in the normal course?"
2. Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.08.2023. The FAA order is Not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar, SDM (HQ) & PIO and Shri Gaurav Singh, Dealing Assistant present in person.
4. Latest reply dated 29.04.2025 of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:Page 2 of 5
"1. Order has been passed by the MSME Council for referring the case to Delhi International Arbitration Centre Delhi High Court (DIAC).
2. Copy of order is enclosed
3. Proceedings dated 31.01.2023 and 27.02.2023 have been recorded in the case file. (Same is enclosed)
4. Yes, file has been referred to Arbitration on dated 28.04.2025.
5. The transfer of files pertaining to matters referred to arbitration is handled by the MSME Council. The cases are referred for arbitration after due hearings by the MSME Council. The forwarding of cases to Arbitrator is done in the MSME Branch headed by Section Officer MSME.
6. After sending the case to Arbitration, this office has no information about proceeding of Arbitration.
7. Time taken for the first listing of a matter before the MSME Council (SOUTH) can vary depending on factors such as the quantum of old & new cases and completion of documents by the parties and number of cases received during the period.
8. Same as above at Point No. 07".
5. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"That this Hon'ble Commission, vide its notice dated 22.04.2025 has fixed a hearing in the aforesaid matter for 01.05.2025 at 11:30 AM.
2. In this regard, it is humbly submitted that an RTI application dated 11.07.2023 filed by the applicant seeking information pertaining to Case No. 297/DM(S)/SDM (HQ)/MSEFC/Delhi/2022, which was filed before the MSME Council. However, due to an inadvertent misplacement of the concerned case file during the shifting and re-organization of records in MSME Branch, the information sought could not be supplied within the stipulated time frame which is highly regretted.
3. Further, the appellant subsequently filed a First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority/ADM (South). The FAA, after due consideration, Page 3 of 5 directed the PIO to provide the requisite information in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
4. Now, the concerned case file has been located and accordingly the reply to the RTI application has been provided on 28.04.2025 to the applicant in compliance of FAA's order. Copy of reply is enclosed.
5. 5. That the delay in furnishing the reply was neither intentional nor deliberate but was purely due to administrative challenges arising out of the ongoing re- arrangement of records, compounded by a shortage of staff and the multiplicity of responsibilities handled by the Office of SDM (HQ).
6. 6. The undersigned tenders an unconditional and sincere apology for the delay and submits that there was no malafide intent on part of the PIO/SDM (HQ). The undersigned holds the RTI Act and the authority of this Hon'ble Commission in the highest regard.
7. In view of the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may kindly take a sympathetic view. The undersigned further assures this Hon'ble Commission that all directions of the Hon'ble Commission shall be complied with in a timely and diligent manner henceforth."
6. The Respondent submitted that now at the stage of second appeal, they have uploaded their reply as per the RTI application of the Appellant which is also shared with the Appellant on her e-mail ID and on her whatsapp number.
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that information has not been provided to her by the Respondent within stipulated period as per the provisions of the RTI Act. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that now at the stage of the second appeal and before the hearing, he has placed on record a revised reply in the form of written submissions before the Commission which in view of the Commission is an adequate response to the RTI application.
Page 4 of 58. The said written submissions of the Respondent are being treated as an updated reply to the instant RTI application, which the Respondent has already shared with the Appellant.
9. The Commission observes that there is a substantial delay in giving reply to the Appellant on her RTI application. The Respondent is directed to be cautious in future and ensure that reply/information should be provided to the RTI applicants within stipulated period as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
10. No further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
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 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of Additional District Magistrate (District South) M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi - 110068 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)