Central Information Commission
P S Agrawal vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 23 July, 2018
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx Hkou
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BHAWAN
ckck xaxukFk ekxZ] eqfujdk
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
ubZ fnYyh-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
File No. : CIC/UTOCH/A/2017/141109/SD
Date of Hearing: 16/07/2018
Date of Decision:16/07/2018
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : P S Agrawal
Respondent(s) : 1. CPIO,
O/o Assistant Registrar,
Cooperative Societies,
UT of Chandigarh-160047.
2. CPIO,
O/o Supdt. (Home-II),
Chandigarh Administration ,
Chandigarh-160047.
RTI application filed on : 26/02/2016
CPIO replied on : 08/04/2016
First appeal filed on : 27/04/2016
First Appellate Authority : 24/06/2016
order
Second Appeal dated : 21/09/2016
Information sought:
The Appellant sought to know action taken on his complaint against Ranjeet Singh, Inspector (A), Grade-1, O/o Registrar Cooperative Societies; copy of 1 documents received from Ranjeet Singh; copy of the action taken against the complaint for the appointment of administrator to investigate the legality of the extra money taken by the CSIO society for the transfer of share/flat in their name as "Society Development Fund".
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent (1): Malkiat Singh, Asstt. Registrar & CPIO, O/o Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, UT of Chandigarh Present through VC.
Respondent (2): Kulbir Singh, Supdt. & CPIO, O/o Supdt. (Home-II), Chandigarh Administration , Chandigarh present through VC.
Appellant stated that he has received 173 pages of documents in response to his RTI Application but they are found to be irrelevant and are almost junk. He further stated that his RTI Application is very specific in nature and yet CPIO has taken more than 30 days to respond and even more than 5 days to transfer his RTI Application to a different public authority for which he wanted him to be penalised.
Respondent (1) affirmed that available and relevant information pertaining to the RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that the request for information primarily seeks to know the action taken on the complaint referred in the RTI Application. It may be noted that no relief can be ordered on para 2 of the RTI Application as information sought pertains to documents received from a third party in pursuance of inquiry against that third party; disclosure of the same is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.2
File No. : CIC/UTOCH/A/2017/141109/SD Commission directs Respondent No.1 to provide a revised reply incorporating specific information free of cost on the following points:
a) final outcome of the inquiry and action taken, if any, against Ranjit Singh against whom the Appellant had filed a complaint and;
b) final outcome of inquiry into the complaint made against appointment of Administrator as sought in para 3 of the RTI Application.
In the event, specific information on the above said points is not available in parts or as a whole; the same shall be categorically stated against that point in the CPIO reply.
The said directions should be complied within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report be duly sent to the Commission.
Further, Commission severely admonishes Respondent No.1 for having delayed the reply on the RTI Application and warns him to exercise due caution in future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 3