Central Information Commission
Senthilvel vs Department Of Defence on 7 March, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/MODEF/C/2022/612909+
CIC/DIGDE/A/2022/625386
In the matter of
P Senthilvel
... Complainant / Appellant
VS
1. CPIO,
Department of Defence
233, B-Wing, Sena Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110001
2. CPIO
O/o Defense Estate Officer,
306 Anna Salai Teynampet
Madras Circle,
Chennai 600018
... Respondents
File No. : 612909 625386 RTI application filed on : 08/12/2021 04/03/2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record 09/03/2022 First appeal No. / Date : MODEF/A/E/22/00004 10/03/2022 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Not on record Complaint / 2nd Appeal filed on : 03/03/2022 22/03/2022 Date of Hearing : 07/03/2023 07/03/2023 Date of Decision : 07/03/2023 07/03/2023
Both the cases were clubbed and heard together as the same information was sought from different public authorities.
The following were present:
Complainant / Appellant : Not present Respondent: Ashutosh Kumar, Deputy Director (Lands) and CPIO in case no. 612909; M.Murugan, DEO and CPIO in case no. 625386 1 Information Sought:
The Complainant / Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide details of the planned land acquisition near and around Sulur Airforce station.
2. Provide details of the proposal sent to Tamil Nadu Government to acquire land near and around Sulur Airforce station.
3. Provide details of the letter sent to the Coimbatore Collector and Tamil Nadu Government to stop land registration around Sulur Airforce station.
Grounds for Complaint / Second appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Complainant / Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The applicant was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice on 27.02.2023vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED301368832IN.
The CPIO in case no. 612909 submitted vide written submissions dated NIL that the RTI application was received on 14.12.2021. The same was transferred to DGDE u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act through online portal on 07.02.2022. He further submitted that the RTI application could not be dealt with on time due to the COVID 2019 conditions when barest minimum staff were attending office. He further submitted that the first appeal was disposed of on 14.03.2022. He submitted that cases of acquisition of defence land are handled and approved by various concerned authorities of Director General of Defence Estates (DGDE) under the delegated powers of Ministry of Defence. He also submitted that the RTI application on the subject received was transferred to DGDE under the provisions of RTI Act in order to provide the requisite information directly to the applicant on the RTI MIS portal.
The CPIO in case no. 625386 submitted that the appellant's application was received in the Defence Estate Office Chennai on transfer. He further submitted that the applicant was advised vide letter dated 09.03.2022 to obtain the relevant information from the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore. However, the applicant has submitted appeal vide online application dated 10.03.2022. In turn, the Appellate Authority vide letter dated 24.03.2022 has asked the appellant to attend a video conference on 29.03.2022. Accordingly, the appellant had attended and as per discussion vide letter dated 13.05.2022 2 the copies of documents as desired by the appellant were furnished. Hence, their office has followed the RTI Act, 2005 in letter and spirit. It is relevant to mention here that the appellant in his second appeal had mentioned that he had not received any reply after the FAA's order. Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO in case no. 625386 which is a second appeal had mentioned that the requisite information was provided on 13.05.2022. However, the appellant mentioned in his second appeal that despite the FAA's order no information was provided, which suggests that the appellant had misrepresented the date of second appeal. Therefore, as second appeal was filed on March 2022, it is clear that the CPIO had provided delayed information. The FAA had issued directions on 29.03.2022 and the appellant filed a second appeal on 22.03.2022, but this is not after the waiting period for the FAA's order.
Decision:
Be that as it may, both the cases need no action, as requisite information was furnished by the custodian and the applicant failed to attend the hearing to counter this.
The cases are disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन सरना) सरना सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3