Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Spmcil - India Government Mint, Mumbai on 19 August, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No. CIC/IGMUM/C/2018/637602
Varun Krishna ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, India Govt. Mint, ... ितवादी /Respondent
Mumbai (A Unit of SPMCIL), Dy.
Manager (HR), Shahid Bhagat
Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 08.11.2018 FA : Not on record Complaint: 27.12.2018
CPIO : 19.12.2018 FAO : Not on record Hearing: 14.08.2020
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), India Govt. Mint, Mumbai (A Unit of SPMCIL), Dy. Manager (HR), Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai seeking information on three points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Complete information including file noting, office notes, transfer orders, emails/communication exchanged, etc pertaining to Page 1 of 4 appointment of Mr. R. Haripant as General Manager, IGM Mumbai along with basic salary of Mr. R. Haripant;
(ii) Total number of days of office attended by Mr. R. Haripant Vs. Total number of days where Mr. R. Haripant maintained the official incoming working hours;
(iii) Total amount of man-hours wasted by Mr. R. Haripant as per Sno 2 by not maintaining incoming time of office hours as a public servant.
2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the CPIO, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that action should be taken against the respondent.
Hearing:
3. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Dy. Manager (HR) & CPIO attended the hearing through audio- call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 31.07.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The complainant submitted that the respondent has not furnished their written submissions on time. On this, the respondent submitted that as per their records, the written submissions was delivered at the residence of the complainant on 13.08.2020.
6. The complainant submitted that no information has been provided to him by the respondent on point nos. 2 and 3 of his RTI application dated 08.11.2018 within stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The complainant submitted that the respondent has given an interim reply on his RTI application which has no locus standi in the RTI Act.
7. The respondent submitted that on 20.11.2018, they have received the RTI application of the complainant by way of transfer on point nos. 2 and 3 of the RTI Page 2 of 4 application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. On 19.12.2018, they have given an interim reply to the complainant, as they need time to trace the information because the information sought by the complainant on point nos. 2 and 3 are not held in record in material form and will have to be created by the PIO which is not as per the provisions of the RTI Act and thus it does not cover under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The respondent further added that at the time of giving interim reply to the complainant, there were structural changes being made in the public authority and there were changes in the work allocations of the PIOs, therefore, final reply could not be sent within stipulated period of time.
8. The complainant submitted that since he has not received the written submissions of the respondent on time, he could not able to rebut the defense taken by the respondent. The complainant further submitted that he had also filed second appeal bearing no. CIC/IGMUM/A/2019/660961 in the matter and this present case should be heard and adjudicated along with the second appeal.
Interim Decision:
9. During the hearing, the complainant has contested that he has not received written submissions of the respondent prior to the date of hearing and he has also contacted the respondent one day before the hearing on which she has not given a satisfactory response. On this, the respondent submitted that as per their records, the written submissions were delivered at the residence of the complainant on 13.08.2020. The Commission is of the view that the respondent public authority should ensure that their written submissions should reach the Commission and the applicant atleast one week before the date of hearing.
10. The Commission further observed that the complainant requested that the matter should only be restricted to an interim reply given by the respondent. He submitted that the final reply of the respondent should not be considered. The complainant further requested the Commission to adjourn the matter as he has Page 3 of 4 received the written submissions of the respondent with delay and he has also filed second appeal bearing no. CIC/IGMUM/A/2019/660961 in the matter and this case should also be listed with his second appeal.
11. In view of the above, the matter is adjourned.
12. The Deputy Registrar is directed to fix hearing in this matter along with the second appeal as mentioned above (as and when it comes for hearing as per procedure). Fresh notice of hearing will be issued to both the parties.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कुमार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क / Date: 14.08.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, India Govt. Mint, Mumbai (A Unit of SPMCIL), Dy. Manager (HR) & PIO, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001.
2. Varun Krishna, Page 4 of 4