Central Information Commission
Nutan Thakur vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 21 November, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOLAF/A/2018/142917
Nutan Thakur ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Department of Legal Affairs, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
M/s Law & Justice, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 02.02.2018 FA : 06.03.2018 SA : 05.07.2018
CPIO : 03.06.2018 FAO : No Order Hearing : 14.11.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi seeking information/ documents belonging to the Department of Legal Affairs pertaining to filing of Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging 12 year old Delhi High Court verdict Page 1 of 4 closing the Bofors case, including the Notesheet and the correspondence between Department of Legal Affairs and various other offices.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO denied the information on the plea that the matter of the RTI application is not clear and that the FAA did not respond to her first appeal. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information/ documents sought by her.
Hearing:
3. The appellant's representative Shri I. K. Singh attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri Neeraj Rawat, Assistant Legal Advisor, Department of Legal Affairs was present in person.
4. The appellant's representative submitted that no reply in response to the RTI application as well as first appeal has been provided by the respondent. He emphasized that the information sought by the appellant is not barred by the RTI Act and is disclosable under the provisions of the RTI Act. He, therefore, requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought for to the appellant.
5. The respondent submitted that the delay in furnishing the reply was partly due to the delay transferring the RTI application from one CPIO to another and partly due to the change in work distribution in the Ministry. The respondent submitted that due to this, there was major delay in furnishing RTI reply. Consequently, the concerned CPIO received a number of RTI applications which had to disposed of in a very limited time. This resulted in an inadvertent human error in reading the terms Page 2 of 4 'Bofor' as 'before'. Hence, the appellant was informed that the information sought for was not clear and thus, the RTI application was rejected. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same. Subsequently, on receipt of the notice of hearing, the matter was re- examined, and it was brought to the notice of the CPIO that the matter pertains to Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT). Hence, the appellant's RTI application was transferred to the DoPT for further necessary action.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that perhaps due to non-application of mind, the respondent had misread the word 'bofors' as 'before'. The Commission also observes that this merely indicates a lack of seriousness and a lackadaisical approach to matter relating to RTI. The Commission, therefore, counsels the CPIO to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur. The Commission also notes that since the information sought for pertains to DoPT, the respondent has transferred the appellant's RTI application to the CPIO, DoPT. However, on perusal of records it seems that no reply in response to the RTI application has been furnished by the CPIO, DoPT. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO, DoPT to provide an appropriate reply in response to the appellant's RTI application dated 02.02.2018, if not provided, to him within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3 of 48. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 19.11.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, 4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, 4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Personnel & Training North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001
4. Ms. Nutan Thakur, Page 4 of 4