Central Information Commission
M. T. Thomas vs Housing And Urban Development ... on 3 October, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/HUDCO/A/2021/136315
M. T. Thomas .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Office of the Regional Chief,
Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.,
HUDCO Regional Office, 3rd Floor, Saphalyam", "
Palayam University Post Office,
Thiruvananthapuram-695034 (Kerala).
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Under Secretary-(RTI Section), Housing & Urban
Development Corporation Limited, HUDCO Bhawan,
Core-7-A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.04.2021
CPIO replied on : 22.06.2021
First appeal filed on : 21.07.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 06.08.2021
Second Appeal received at CIC : 07.09.2021
Date of Hearing : 03.10.2022
Date of Decision : 03.10.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 22.06.2021, as under:Page 2 of 5
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 21.07.2021.
• The FAA vide order dated 06.08.2021 held as under:
• Written submission has been received from CPIO/HUDCO vide letter dated 26.09.2022, as under :Page 3 of 5
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present: -
Appellant: Present, via VC Respondent: 1. Ms. Veena Philipose, CPIO/HUDCO, Thiruvananthapuram,
2. J.P. Nahar, CPIO/HUDCO, Delhi
3. E.Purnima Toppo, HUDCO, Delhi
4. Ramesh Bhagat, HUDCO, Delhi The Appellant submitted that requisite information has not been furnished to him and has been denied on erroneous grounds. He insisted that penalty should be imposed on the Respondent for their conduct.
The Respondent point-wise reply has been furnished to the Appellant. They further submitted that information sought by the Appellant at point no. 1 of the RTI application is exempted under section 8(1)(d) since it involves information relating to commercial confidence which would affect the competitive position of third party.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their written submission along with annexures, dated 26.09.2022, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that as regards the point no. 2 of the RTI application no cogent reply has been furnished by the Respondent.
In the given circumstances the Commission deems it fit to direct the concerned PIO, to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised fresh reply with regards to only point no. 2 of the RTI Application, after thoroughly searching their records. The Respondent may redact the information which is exempted under RTI Act. Thus, the Respondent shall provide a revised fresh reply with regards to only point no. 2 of the RTI Application to the appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.Page 4 of 5
In case relevant information, as sought in the instant RTI Application, pertains to some other Branch/Department, then the PIO should procure and provide the same to the Appellant. In doing so, PIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the appellant.
The said direction of the Commission must be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5