Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shantilal Chaplot vs Mumbai Port Trust on 18 September, 2018

                                        के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका

                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई    द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MPTRS/A/2017/145588
Shantilal Chaplot


                                                                       ....अपीलकता
/Appellant
                                           VERSUS
                                                बनाम
The CPIO/Sr. Asstt. Estate Manager
Mumbai Port Trust Estate Division,
3rd Floor, Vijaydeep S V Marg Ballard
Estate, Mumbai - 400001.                                            ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
                                                       Dates
RTI application                             :          15.02.2017
CPIO reply                                  :          14.03.2017
First Appeal                                :          18.03.2017
FAA Order                                   :          21.04.2017
Second Appeal                               :          17.06.2017
Date of hearing                             :          11.09.2018
Facts:

The appellant vide RTI application dated 15.02.2017 sought information on four points as under:

1. Copies of letters/documents/orders in relation to any action taken against his letter dated 15.04.2016.
2. Copies of letters/documents/orders in relation to any action taken for correction of the name of the appellant to Shantilal K Chaplot as referred to in the Estate Manger's letter dated 27.06.2013 .
3. Other related information.
Page 1 of 3

The CPIO replied on 14.03.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 18.03.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal by virtue of its order dated 21.04.2017. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 17.06.2017. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Order

      Appellant :        Representative of the appellant
                         Shri Harsh Kishore Sabley
      Respondent :       Absent

The respondent was absent despite valid and timely notice of the CIC for which warning is issued to the concerned respondent PIO. The concerned PIO should desist from committing such lapse in future. He should either take prior permission of the Commission before absenting himself from the hearing or he should send proper representative to the Commission's hearing after obtaining due permission from the Commission for doing so and after briefing the authorised representative duly.

During the hearing, the appellant submitted that although he received the requisite replies dated 14.03.2017 and 21.04.2017, he was not satisfied with the replies received from the respondent.

On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that proper reply was not provided to the appellant on point nos. 1-4 of the said RTI application. A more comprehensive reply should have been provided to the appellant as all the sought for information is eminently disclosable under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc. Page 2 of 3 Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide revised point wise reply on all points of the above stated RTI application complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.

The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.

The concerned registry of this bench is directed to send a copy of this order to the CMD, Mumbai Port Trust for information and necessary remedial action.

With the above observation/direction/warning, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.





                                       Amitava Bhattacharyya (अ मताभ भ टाचाय)
                                      Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु त )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत        त)

Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कु मार तलपा )
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / [email protected]
 दनांक / Date




                                                                           Page 3 of 3