Central Information Commission
Samir Mathur vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 15 January, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/ UTOCH/A/2018/160200-UM
Mr. Samir Mathur
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Office of the Secretary,
House Allotment Committee,
2nd Floor, UT. Govt Press Building,
Sector- 18-A, Chandigarh 160018
प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.01.2021
Date of Decision : 14.01.2021
Date of RTI application 05.04.2018
CPIO's response 06.04.2018
Date of the First Appeal 01.06.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 20/29.06.2018
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 03.10.2018
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought the following information: -
1. A meeting of the House Allotment Committee UT Administration was convened and held on 9th January, 2015.
i) Certified List of the Chairman and members who attended the HAC meeting on 09.01.2015 duly, verified from the attendance sheet, if any.
ii) A certified copy of the complete Agenda circulated/taken up in the Meeting which included an Agenda item on the subject of "Earmarking/Retention of Government Page 1 of 3 Accommodation by the officers appointed as Statutory Authorities" may be provided.
iii) Certified copy of complete file noting sheets/correspondence on which the agenda item on "Earmarking/Retention of Government Accommodation by the officers appointed as Statutory Authorities" was prepared, dealt with and approved.
2. A Certified copy of the draft minutes of the proceedings of the HAC meeting as above containing signatures/remarks of the members of the HAC, may please be provided.
3. If Minutes/Proceedings of the HAC Meeting were circulated, a certified/attested copy of the same be provided.
4. If the Minutes/Proceedings were not circulated, then certified copy of the complete file/correspondence and noting's on which decision not to approve/circulate the proceedings or to reject them was taken by competent authority or Chairman of HAC, please be provided.
5. As per record, pertaining to the HAC meeting on 09.01.2015 was there any discussion/consideration or proposal to constitute a Committee consisting of Chief Secretaries of Haryana and Punjab etc. to consider/make recommendations on the issue of Retention of Government Accommodation by officers appointed as statutory authorities? If so, please provide certified copy of the record/draft minutes.
6. If any meeting of the HAC took place after 09.01.2015 up to March 2018 in which the topic of Retention of accommodation by statutory authorities was taken up, then, certified copy of agenda and minutes of such meeting may please be given.
7. Was any decision taken by Secretary HAC or any other authority to direct the SDM(East) cum EO to evict Sh. Samir Mathur, State Information Commissioner, appointed under Central Law, although decision on the 09.01.2015 HAC. Meeting's Agenda on the subject "Earmarking/retention of Government Accommodation" (item no. 6) was pending and minutes had not been finalized? If so, certified copies of correspondence and noting sheet on which eviction of Samir Mathur SIC (the applicant) by SDM cum EO was ordered by Secretary HAC or competent Authority may please be provided.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 06.04.2018, provided a point-wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 20/29.06.2018, enclosed a copy of draft minutes and further provided some additional information to the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
Page 2 of 3HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Ms. Surinder Kaur (Superintendent House Allotment) through Audio Conferencing;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 04.01.2021 wherein it was informed that he has recently been through COVID-19 infection and that he has been advised rest till complete recovery. Therefore, he submitted that he could not be able to attend the hearing as scheduled and the matter be decided on merits. The Respondent present during the hearing, informed the Commission that the CPIO/FAA had responded in the matter within the stipulated time frame and the available information has already been furnished. Moreover, the next meeting of HAC (Upper) has been held on 22.01.2020 under the Chairman of H.E. the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh wherein the minutes of the earlier meeting held on 09.01.2015 have been confirmed by the Committee and accordingly, a revised reply has also been furnished to the Appellant.
A copy of the written submission received from the Respondent dated 05.01.2021 was taken on record, a copy of which was also endorsed to the Appellant.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent as also the reply furnished by the CPIO, the Commission observes that a suitable point-wise reply has been furnished by the Respondent, hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in this matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) (R. K. Rao) (आर के राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] निनाक ं / Date: 14.01.2021 Page 3 of 3