Central Information Commission
Deepak Kumar vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 10 August, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Complaint No. CIC/YA/C/2016/900260
CIC/DOATE/C/2016/297602
Complainant: Sh. Deepak Kumar
EB 3/13, Efficiency Apartment,
RRCAT Colony, Indore, Madhya Pradesh
(9826260919).
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
Under Secy. (I&M)
Deptt. Of Atomic Energy,
Anushakti Bhavan,
Mumbai-400001.
Date of Hearing: 08.08.2017
Dated of Decision: 08.08.2017
ORDER
Facts:
1. The complainant filed RTI application dated 15.06.2016 seeking certified copy of notings and all documents that got generated in response to the letters dated 24.02.2016 and 08.04.2016 addressed to the Secretary DAE.
2. The CPIO responded on 07.11.2016. The complainant filed first appeal dated 20.07.2016 with First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 10.11.2016. The complainant filed complaint on 30.07.2016 before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him.
Hearing:
3. The complainant participated in the hearing through VC. The respondent Sh. Sriram, CPIO participated in the hearing through VC.1
4. The respondent had sent their written submissions dated 01.08.2017, which is taken on record.
5. The complainant stated that he had filed RTI application on 15.06.2016 and had sought certified copy of notings and all documents that got generated in response to the letters dated 24.02.2016 and 08.04.2016 addressed to the Secretary DAE. The complainant stated that no information was given to him in stipulated period of time by the respondent.
6. During the hearing, the complainant stated that his first appeal dated 20.07.2016 was registered as an RTI application. He further stated that the First Appellate Authority had wrongly transferred his first appeal to another First Appellate Authority.
7. The complainant stated that his grievance letters/petitions were not responded by the respondent.
8. The respondent stated that the RTI application dated 15.06.2016 of the complainant was examined in their R&D I section of DAE Secretariat. He stated that it was noticed that his letters dated 24.02.2016 and 08.04.2016 were not received in their section. However, his subsequent letter dated 19.05.2016 was received in section. Accordingly, grievance petition dated 19.05.2016 was forwarded to CAO, RRCAT vide DAE ID note no.
RRCAT/Misc./2016/R&D-I/12392 dated 19.09.2016 with a request to take appropriate action under intimation to the department. The respondent stated that copies of note dated 19.09.2016 and e-mails dated 20.09.2016 and 03.11.2016 were furnished to the complainant.
9. The respondent stated that being aggrieved by non-receipt of information, the complainant made first appeal on 20.07.2016. The FAA vide its order 10.11.2016 observed that the RTI application dated 15.06.2016 has already been disposed of by the CPIO vide letter dated 07.11.2016 and the CPIO was advised to be cautious in dealing with RTI applications for their timely disposal. The respondent apologised for the delay in giving reply to the complainant.
10. The respondent stated that FAA has not diverted the appeal as claimed by the complainant. The grievance petition of the complainant has been handled appropriately by forwarding the same to the Administrative Head of 2 RRCAT and not to BARC. The documents in support of the action taken were provided to the complainant on 07.11.2016, free of cost.
11. The respondent stated that against the order of FAA, the complainant had made two online complaints. He stated that both complaints are identical and hence, should be disposed together.
Discussion/ observation:
12. The Commission observed that there is a delay in giving reply to the complainant on his RTI application dated 15.06.2016. However, no malafide was observed on the part of the respondent.
13. From the perusal of the records, it seems that the grievance petition of the complainant is still not disposed of. The respondent is advised to dispose of the grievance petition of the complainant.
Decision:
14. The respondent is advised to be cautious in future and ensure that the RTI applications are dealt with due seriousness and information is provided within the stipulated period of time to the applicants. The complaints are disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar 3