Ankita Kamlesh Shah vs Drat, Mumbai on 9 October, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ankita Kamlesh Shah vs Drat, Mumbai on 9 October, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated nil include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through her RTI application dated 28.03.2019 and first appeal dated 27.04.2019:-

(i) "Photocopies of all the complaints received by DRAT, Mumbai against Shri. Chikkam Vijay Mohan, Presiding Officer, Nagpur till date.

(ii) Action taken reports on each complaints and present status of each complaints.

(iii) Recently the applicant has filed complaint against Shri Chikkam Vijay Mohan for humiliating her, please provide the action taken report on the complaint filed by the applicant.

Page 1 of 4

(iv) The applicant has also filed complaint against the staff of the DRT, Nagpur named Mr. Sachin Dhandekar. The cognizance on the complaint was taken by the presiding officer, DRT, Nagpur and a report is forwarded to DRAT, Mumbai for further appropriate actions. Please provide the report sent by the DRT, Nagpur on the complaint filed by the applicant against Mr. Sachin Dhandekar along with all the documents annexed therewith and the action taken report of the DRAT, Mumbai.

(v) provide the name of the person who is dealing with the complaint filed by the applicant"

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 28.03.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), DEBTS Recovery Tribunals, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 26.04.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 27.04.2019 The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.05.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated nil before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated nil inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory; and that the information concerned other complaints filed by her against the incapacity and humiliation suffered at the hands of bank officials. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.04.2019 that the complaints received by DRAT, Mumbai were placed before Chairperson, DRAT, Mumbai and comments/orders were awaited; that the information was regarding complaints against Officer working in the institution, hence, could not be disclosed under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act; that the Competent Authority had forwarded its findings in the allegations made against the Officer in the complaint said to have been sent by one of the members of DRT Bar Page 2 of 4 Association, Nagpur to the Ministry of Finance for further action, etc. The FAA concurred with the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ajay Shende, PIO and Shri Pradeep Gorath, FAA, DRAT, Mumbai attended the hearing through audio.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case and while endorsing their reply dated 26.04.2019 inter alia submitted that the status of the complaints as referred to by the appellant were provided to her. However, the information concerning officials, who were third parties, disclosure of which had no relation to any public interest or activity was not disclosed to the appellant in terms of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that due reply was given by the CPIO on 26.04.2019. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that the appellant sought information regarding complaints filed by her and certain information regarding complaints that were not filed by her against officials of DRT Nagpur. It may be noted that the respondent duly categorized the information concerning the appellant's complaints and the status and action taken were duly informed except for the information concerning complaints filed by third parties. That being so, and in the absence of the appellant or any written objection being filed on her behalf, the averments made by the respondent are taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter further. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ाा)) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 08.10.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Page 3 of 4 उप पंजीयक Dy. Registrar ( ) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNALS 1ST FLOOR, TELEPHONE BHAVAN, STRAND ROAD, COLABA MARKET, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400 005 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNALS, 1ST FLOOR, TELEPHONE BHAVAN, STRAND ROAD, COLABA MARKET, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400 005 MS. ANKITA KAMLESH SHAH Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission