Central Information Commission
Mrpraful Desai vs Election Commission Of India on 21 January, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/003773/SB
Dated 21.01.2016
Appellant : Shri Praful Desai,
2, Vatika Bungalows, Vasna, Baroda390
015.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Election Commission of India,
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi110 001.
Date of Hearing : 21.01.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.10.2013
CPIO's reply : 07.11.2013/06.01.2014
First Appeal filed on : 30.11.2013
FAA's order : 28.12.2013/03.01.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 18.01.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Praful Desai filed an application dated 08.10.2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Election Commission of India (ECI), seeking information on two points regarding steps to educate voters about 'NOTA' right, including (i) what percentage of funds allotted is used for educating voters about their rights of franchise, so that democracy flourishes in full form in Parliamentary and State Council elections held after introduction of Rule 49O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and (ii) copies of extracts of notes regarding the means of publicity for educating voters in respect of 'NOTA' in E.V.M., the E.C., proposes to adopt, funds proposed to be used for ensuing State Elections including that of Delhi and whether the E.C., is going to involve N.G.Os/Voluntary Agencies to give wide publicity in this respect and details thereof.
2. The appellant filed second appeal before the Commission on 18.01.2014 on the ground that he was not satisfied with the information provided to him. Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Praful Desai attended the video conferencing. The respondent Shri Suman Kr. Das, Under Secretary (ECI) was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he has not been provided the required information. He further submitted that the manner in which the ECI is conducting awareness of the voters is inefficient and does not cover the targeted population. With regard to point no.1 of his RTI application, he submitted that the reply of the CPIO does not mention categorically about the funds spent on awareness of the voters about the "None of the above option" (NOTA). With regard to point no. 2 of the RTI application, he submitted that he has not been provided specific information on the means of publicity which the ECI undertakes for voter awareness. The appellant requested the Commission that the reply of the CPIO be resent to him.
5. The respondent in response to point no.1 of the appellant's RTI application submitted that funds are allocated for broad categories like voter awareness which will cover awareness about NOTA as well and there are no separate funds for NOTA awareness. In response to the remaining queries raised in the RTI application, the respondent submitted that the information has been provided to the appellant.
Decision:
6. The Commission observes that the information has been provided to the appellant. The Commission upon the request of the appellant directs the respondent to resend the reply of the CPIO to the appellant.
7. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer