Central Information Commission
P Purushothaman vs Ut Of Puducherry on 24 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTPON/C/2023/626004
P Purushothaman ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Puducherry Housing Board,
3rd Floor, Housing Board Complex,
Anna Nagar, Nellithope,
Puducherry-605 005. ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.07.2024
Date of Decision : 23.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 19.12.2022
CPIO replied on : 11.01.2023
First appeal filed on : 24.01.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 24.02.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29.05.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 19.12.2022 seeking the following information:
1. A SUMP REPAIRING WORK EXECUTED BY MR ESVARANE JUNIOR ENGINEER PUDUCHERRY HOUSING BOARD ESTIMATED VALUE RS 1,10,470.00. THAT CHARGED OFFICIAL MR ISVARANE AND ENGINEERING TEAM SUBMITTED FALSE BILL AND TRIED TO CLAIM AMOUNT SO THAT Page 1 of 4 WE WANT TO SCRUTINIZE THE FILE AND WANT TO GET COPIES OF NEEDED DOCUMENTS
2. PETITION DATED 03/11/2022 HAS GIVEN TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THIS MATTER TO THE HOUSING BOARD SECRETARY. IF ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN KINDLY FURNISH THE DETAILS
3. IF ACTION HAS TAKEN ON HIGHER OFFICIALS OTHER THAN MR ISVARANE PLS FURNISH THE DETAILS.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11.01.2023 stating as under:
1 & 3. Information pertains to Engineering Wing, PHB.
2. As the said Petition dt.03.11.2022 has also been addressed in LGSPMS, it has been replied by the Under Secretary (Housing) to the P.S. to Lt.
Governor on 05.01.223.
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 24.01.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 24.02.2023, held as under.
3. The PIO informed that the Appellant was given reply on 11-01-2023 stating that the information sought by the Appellant under RTI Act, 2005 in Sl. No 1 & 3 pertains to Engineering Wing. Now the PIO has stated that the information sought in the appeal is not traceable.
4. On careful consideration of the available records, the undersigned directed the PIO to trace the file and supply the information to the Appellant within 25 days from the date of receipt of this order, the Appellant has also agreed to.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Shri R Ambumani, Office Manager (In-charge) & PIO present through Video-Conference.
The Complainant during the hearing reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant complaint and submitted that till date information has not been provided to him by the Respondent.Page 2 of 4
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 24.02.2023, they have categorically informed the Complainant that the information sought by the Complainant is not traceable in their records. However, efforts were made but the relevant file is not traceable.
Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that as per their office manual, in case an office goes missing, lodging of FIR is provided. However, in this case, FIR has not been lodged yet in the matter. The Respondent stated that the then PIO is now retired from the service. He further informed that the work pertains to the year 2013.
Decision The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the Complainant is aggrieved that information was not provided to him as per his RTI application till date. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that they have categorically informed the Complainant that the relevant file is not traceable.
The Commission observes that the FAA vide its order dated had specifically directed the PIO to trace the file and supply the information to the Complainant within 25 days from the date of receipt of the said order. But it seems that no efforts were made by the Respondent Public Authority in tracing the file. Further, no action was taken was taken for the missing file, which pertains to work done on contract, as per their office manual. Such casual conduct of the Public Authority indicates the mala fide intent in not providing the information to the Complainant.
However, during the hearing, the Respondent showed his willingness to again make efforts to trace out the relevant file and provide specific reply to the Complainant. In view of the above, the Respondent is advised to again make thorough efforts to trace the file and provide information to the Complainant. If the relevant file is not found/available, then the Respondent is advised to take action regarding missing file as per their manual and inform the action taken to the Complainant on affidavit with a copy of it duly endorsed to the Complainant and uploaded on Commission's portal, free of cost deposing categorically that information sought is not available in their records and also Page 3 of 4 the details of action taken for missing file. The said affidavit should reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA PUDUCHERRY HOUSING BOARD, 3rd Floor, Housing Board Complex, Anna Nagar, Nellithope, Puducherry- 605005.Page 4 of 4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)