Central Information Commission
Asif Khan vs National Horticulture Board(Nhb) on 2 September, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:- CIC/NHOBO/A/2019/158270
In the matter of:
Asif Khan
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
National Horticulture Board
R-24, IInd Floor, Nr. Hindustan Times MP Nagar,
Zone-I, Bhopal - 462 011, M.P.
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 02/08/2019 CPIO replied on : 22/11/2019 First appeal filed on : 20/09/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 09/10/2019 Second Appeal dated : 26/11/2019 Date of Hearing : 02/09/2021 Date of Decision : 02/09/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Laxman Singh, Deputy Director and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide details of farmers, out of the list attached with the RTI application, whose compositions have been approved.
2. Provide details of the grants sanctioned for the approved compositions.
3. Provide details of materials for which grants have been approved in Madhya Pradesh during 2015-16 to 2018-19.
4. And other related information.1
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present at the VC Venue despite due service of notice on 18.08.2021 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED959815393IN. In his second appeal he submitted that he had not received any information yet.
The CPIO vide written submissions dated 11.08.2021 submitted that as per NHB Bhopal office letter dated 15.10.2019 addressed to the FAA, NHB, Gurugram it has been mentioned that the information sought by the applicant has been sent on 14.08.2019 by mail and speed post. He further submitted that as per NHB Bhopal office e-mail dated 22.11.2019 addressed to the FAA, NHB, Gurugram, a copy of information sent to the applicant was enclosed.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 14.08.2019 provided a reply on 9 points (page 15), whereas the RTI application contains 7 points only. However, as the appellant denied receipt of any information, the CPIO should revisit the RTI application and provide a suitable point-wise reply as per the points raised in the RTI application.
Decision:
The CPIO is accordingly directed to re-examine the RTI application and provide a point-wise reply on all the points to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. Further, he should also resend the reply dated 14.08.2019 to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
2
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3